(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions

E.D. California

(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 22, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-02374·Unknown

Opinion

GARRISON JONES, No. 2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL SOLUTIONS, ECF No. 45 Defendant.

Plaintiff moves for the appointment of counsel in this civil action brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate 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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present here. Plaintiff appears able to articulate his claims. The allegations in the amended complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Further, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits at this early stage in litigation. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 45, is denied without prejudice. Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 4 ie — Dated: _ July 21, 2021 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

GARRISON JONES, No. 2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL SOLUTIONS, ECF No. 45 Defendant.

Plaintiff moves for the appointment of counsel in this civil action brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate 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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present here. Plaintiff appears able to articulate his claims. The allegations in the amended complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Further, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits at this early stage in litigation. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 45, is denied without prejudice. Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 4 ie — Dated: _ July 21, 2021 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions ((PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related