01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 

PENDING MOTIONS - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

CURTIS S. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICER BURACH, et al., 

Defendants. 

____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. C05-2064-JLR-MAT 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 

PENDING MOTIONS 

 

 This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the 

Court are plaintiff’s motions to compel, to appoint counsel, to extend the discovery deadline, 

and to amend his complaint. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motions, and the balance 

of the record, does hereby ORDER as follows: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 153) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff, 

by way of the instant motion, seeks to compel responses to his requests for production of 

documents. The Court may consider a motion to compel discovery only when that motion is 

accompanied by a certification that the moving party “has in good faith conferred or attempted 

to confer” with the party failing to make disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Plaintiff’s 

motion was not accompanied by the requisite certification and, thus, the motion is not properly 

Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 156 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 3
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 

PENDING MOTIONS - 2 

before the Court.1

 (2) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 153) is DENIED. As plaintiff 

was previously advised, there is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to 

represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional 

circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). 

A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

 Plaintiff has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that, 

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his claims pro se. 

Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional circumstances which 

warrant appointment of counsel. 

 (3) Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline (Dkt. No. 153) is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff seeks a 60 day extension of the discovery deadline. Defendants do not 

oppose the requested extension. Accordingly, the discovery deadline is extended to January 

24, 2011, and the dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to February 24, 2011. 

 (4) Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 155) is STRICKEN. 

 1

 Defendants, in their response to plaintiff’s motion, indicated that the requested 

documents were in the process of being collected so that they could be turned over to plaintiff. 

It therefore appears that even absent the procedural defect, plaintiff’s motion to compel would 

be moot. 

Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 156 Filed 12/01/10 Page 2 of 3
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 

PENDING MOTIONS - 3 

Plaintiff seeks to add a defendant to this action by way of the instant motion to amend. 

Plaintiff was previously advised that the Court would strike any motion to amend which was 

not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. (See Dkt. No. 108.) While plaintiff 

attached to his motion a one page document which he identifies as a proposed amendment, the 

document identifies a single claim against a single defendant. An amended complaint operates 

as a complete substitute for, rather than a mere supplement to, a previous complaint. See 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Hal Roach Studios v. Richard 

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended)). Thus, an amended 

complaint must set forth every claim against every defendant in the action. Plaintiff may not 

add defendants one page at a time. 

 (5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for 

defendants, and to the Honorable James L. Robart. 

 DATED this 1st day of December, 2010. 

A

Mary Alice Theiler 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 156 Filed 12/01/10 Page 3 of 3