(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 3, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-02553·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 10 11 CARL FOUST, Case No. 2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME

14 CONSUMER ATTORNEY MARKETING ECF No. 18

SERVICE, 15

16 Defendant. 17 On March 4, 2021, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified plaintiff that it failed 18 to state a claim, and granted plaintiff sixty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 14. 19 Plaintiff has since filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 18. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 21 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 22 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 23 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to 25 afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the 26 court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 27 circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 28 1 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 2 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint that alleges a viable claim, and he has therefore failed 4 | to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Indeed, plaintiff’s original complaint 5 | fails to identify any constitutional or federal rights violated by defendant. See ECF Nos. 1 & 14. 6 | For this reason, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied without prejudice. 7 | Plaintiff, however, will be granted a brief extension of time to comply with the court’s March 3, 8 | 2021 order requiring him to either file an amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to 9 | stand by his original complaint. 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied. 12 2. Plaintiff is granted until May 24, 2021 to either file an amended complaint or advise 13 || the court that he wishes to stand by his original complaint. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 3, 2021 q_-—_— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service ((PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Presser v. Hildenbrand
23 Iowa 483 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1867)