Nicholas Loftis v. Glover, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00404
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 NICHOLAS LOFTIS , 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00404-JLR-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, DKT. 9 11 GLOVER, et al. , 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff filed a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging Defendants Tukwila Police Sergeant 14 Glover, Tukwila Police Department and King County District Attorney, violated his rights by 15 failing to investigate a crime in which he alleges he was a victim. 16 Plaintiff now moves the Court to appoint counsel on the grounds that he has contacted 17 15-20 lawyers but has been unsuccessful in retaining counsel. There is no general right to 18 counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court 19 may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under 20 “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 21 Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the 22 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 23 1 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 2 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 Plaintiff has not shown there are extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment 4 of counsel. First, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by not

5 adequately investigating a criminal case. However, “an inadequate investigation by police 6 officers is not sufficient to state a § 1983 claim unless another recognized constitutional right is 7 involved, such as failure to protect against discrimination.” Sexual Sin De Un Abdul Blue v. City 8 of Los Angeles, No. CV 09–7573–PA (JEM), 2010 WL 890172, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010). 9 This is because absent a special relationship or special statutory duty, police officers have no 10 affirmative duty to investigate crimes in a particular manner or to protect one citizen from 11 another. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.1994). Thus, a 12 plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to have the police investigate his complaints against 13 other parties. See Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768 (2005) (“[T]he 14 benefit that a third party may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally

15 does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its procedural nor in its 16 ‘substantive’ manifestations.”); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private 17 citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); 18 Smith v. Ark. State Highway Emps., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 464–65 (1979) (per curiam) 19 (noting the Constitution “does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen 20 [or] to respond” to grievances”). Thus, a plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim merely by alleging 21 the failure to investigate their complaint absent evidence of some other violation. See, e.g., Boldt 22 v. Myers, 376 Fed. Appx. 800, 801 (9th Cir.2010); Hason v. Beck, No. CV 13–3274–SVW 23 (JPR), 2013 WL 6732672, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013). 1 Plaintiff’s current complaint is thus deficient, and the likelihood of success is low. 2 Plaintiff should thus file an amended complaint no later than March 30, 2026 or the case will be 3 dismissed. If Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated other constitutional rights, he should set forth 4 the specific facts that state a plausible ground for relief.

5 The Court also finds Plaintiff’s claims are not factually or legally complicated and 6 Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate his claims without a lawyer. The Court accordingly 7 ORDERS: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 9) is DENIED. 9 2. Any amended complaint Plaintiff wishes to file must be filed by March 30, 2026. 10 The failure to file a sufficient amended complaint will result in a recommendation this matter be 11 dismissed. 12 2. The amended complaint will serve as a complete replacement of the original 13 complaint filed in this case. The amended complaint must thus be complete and name all 14 Defendants that Plaintiff seeks to sue, the dates of any claim, the acts committed by each

15 Defendant that support Plaintiff’s claims. As the amended complaint completely replaces the 16 original complaint, the Court will not consider the contents of the original complaint. 17 3. The clerk shall provide Plaintiff a copy of this order and a standard § 1983 18 complaint form. 19 DATED this 18th day of March, 2026. 20 A 21 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 22