Alamin Samad, et al. v. Martha Boersch, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02169
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALAMIN SAMAD, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02169-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARTHA BOERSCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Alamin Samad, Derrick White, and Johnny Rice initiated this action with a 18 complaint filed on August 4, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs all filed motions to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 6, 8.) Plaintiffs also filed a motion to appoint counsel and a motion for 20 class certification. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) On August 21, 2025, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not 21 made the requisite showing to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered them to pay the filing fee. 22 (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiffs White and Rice each filed a “notice of voluntary dismissal.” (ECF Nos. 23 10, 11.) It is unclear whether these documents are attempting to dismiss these Plaintiffs from the 24 case or whether they are attempting to dismiss the in forma pauperis applications. Plaintiffs White 25 and Rice shall inform the Court whether their notices of voluntary dismissal (ECF Nos. 10, 11) 26 are intended to dismiss the parties from the case, or if they are intended to dismiss the motions to 27 proceed in forma pauperis 28 On September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint and paid the filing fee. 1 (ECF No. 12; see Docket.) On October 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a 2 second amended complaint (ECF No. 16), and on October 28, 2025, they filed a second amended 3 complaint (ECF No. 17). 4 The Court first addresses the pending motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 6, 5 8.) Because Plaintiffs paid the filing fee, these motions are DENIED as moot. 6 Second, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 3.) It is 7 “well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United 8 States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Under “exceptional circumstances,” a 9 court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Palmer 10 v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). When determining whether “exceptional 11 circumstances” exist, a court considers both “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 12 ability of the petitioner to articulate [the] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 13 issues involved.” Id. (citation omitted). 14 The court has extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. Having 15 considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds Plaintiffs do not meet the burden of 16 demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. 17 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 18 Third, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (ECF No. 4.) “Pro se 19 plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the 20 interests of the class[.]” Horn v. Foulk, 2008 WL 4457683, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008); see 21 Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona 22 has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for 23 class certification is DENIED. (ECF No. 4.) 24 Fourth, Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and 25 filed a second amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Good cause appearing, Plaintiffs’ motion 26 is granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 27 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiffs Derrick White and Johnny Rice’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis 1 (ECF Nos. 6, 8) are DENIED as moot; 2 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED; 3 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (ECF No. 4) is DENIED; 4 4. Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is 5 GRANTED; and 6 5. Plaintiffs Derrick White and Johnny Rice shall inform the Court whether their 7 notices of voluntary dismissal (ECF Nos. 10, 11) are intended to dismiss the 8 parties from the case, or if they are intended to dismiss the motions to proceed in 9 forma pauperis. 10 || Dated: November 3, 2025 fi 20 } Kt | / , a he

12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 5, gebr.2283.25 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28