Taylor v. Crisham

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 AUBREY TAYLOR, CASE NO. C23-1717-JCC 10 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 SARA BLOND, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s filing titled “Emergency Request of the 18 Court” (Dkt. No. 36). Within it, Plaintiff complains about his inability to litigate the case due to 19 his incarceration, but otherwise fails to articulate any specific relief he seeks from the Court. (See 20 generally id.) Moreover, to the extent he does request specific relief, Plaintiff still fails to provide 21 a proper basis for his requests. For instance, Plaintiff requests that all court documents sent to 22 him be stamped with “a legal mail notice” on the outside envelope. (Id. at 1.) However, “[m]ail 23 from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” Keenan v. 24 Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996). As court documents are not “legal mail,” the Court 25 declines to grant Plaintiff’s request that the Court stamp “legal mail” on the outside envelope of 26 Court mailings. Similarly, Plaintiff “asks the court to appoint civil counsel in this matter as soon as 1 possible.” (Id. at 4.) However, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 2 this action, nor has he articulated “exceptional circumstances” that warrant appointment of counsel 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 4 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, the Court declines to grant 5 Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel. 6 Finally, Plaintiff seeks an “[e]xtension of time due to compelling circumstances,” yet 7 does not specify for what deadline he seeks the extension. (See id. at 2.) Nevertheless, given that 8 objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable David W. Christel, 9 U.S. Magistrate Judge, were due on September 30, 2024, (see generally Dkt. No. 35), which is 10 the same day Plaintiff appears to have mailed out his “emergency request,” (see Dkt. No. 36 at 11 5), the Court will construe Plaintiff’s submission as a motion for an extension of time to object to 12 the R&R. The Court GRANTS the motion. The date by which Plaintiff must file his objections to 13 Judge Christel’s R&R is hereby extended from September 30, 2024, to October 28, 2024. The 14 Clerk is DIRECTED to re-note Judge Christel’s R&R (Dkt. No. 35) to October 28, 2024. 15 DATED this 7th day of October 2024. Ravi Subramanian 16 Clerk of Court 17 s/Kathleen Albert 18 Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26