Kyle Dean Scott v. Lewis County Jail, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06181
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 KYLE DEAN SCOTT, Case No. 3:25-cv-06181-BHS-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTIONS FOR SUBPOENA, TO LEWIS COUNTY JAIL, et al., EXTEND DEADLINES, AND FOR 9 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Defendants. (DKTS. 4, 5, 9) 10 11 Before the Court are the following motions filed by plaintiff: (1) a motion to 12 subpoena video evidence, Dkt. 4; (2) a motion to extend filing deadlines for his in forma 13 pauperis application and application for court appointed counsel, Dkt. 5; and (3) a 14 motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 9. For the below reasons, all of plaintiff’s motions are 15 DENIED, without prejudice. If filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 16 Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.), and if such a motion comports with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), 17 plaintiff may refile these motions. 18 Plaintiff’s motion to subpoena video evidence (Dkt. 4) is DENIED as premature 19 as the parties in this matter have not yet commenced discovery. The Court notes parties 20 have a duty to preserve evidence which “is triggered when a party knows or reasonably 21 should know that the evidence may be relevant to pending or future litigation.” E.E.O.C. 22 v. Fry’s Elecs., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1044 (W.D. Wash. 2012). 23 As for plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 9), it is not entirely legible; it 24 appears portions were inadequately photocopied. Thus, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED 1 without prejudice to permit him to re-file a legible motion. Plaintiff is advised that there is 2 “no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 3 2009). 4 If plaintiff decides to re-file the motion, he will be required to explain how his case

5 presents “‘exceptional circumstances’” for appointing counsel. Id. This includes 6 explaining his “‘likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] 7 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. 8 ((quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983)); see also Wilborn v. 9 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“If all that was required to establish 10 successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for 11 development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”); 12 see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Appellant must show 13 that because of the complexity of the claims he was unable to articulate his positions”). 14 Plaintiff’s motion to extend filing deadlines (Dkt. 5) is DENIED as moot; the Court

15 granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 7) and addressed his motion to 16 appoint counsel above. 17 18 Dated this 24th day of February, 2026. 19 20 A 21 Theresa L. Fricke 22 United States Magistrate Judge

23 24