(PS) McCoy v. CA Dept of Social Services

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

(PS) McCoy v. CA Dept of Social Services

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEILA MCCOY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00566-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND INFORMING 14 CA DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., PLAINTIFF THAT ANY FUTURE FILINGS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL 15 Defendants. RULES OF CIVIL OR APPELLATE PROCEDURE WILL BE DISREGARDED 16 ECF No. 11 17 18 On February 14, 2023, the court closed this case due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 19 ECF No. 9. Several months later, plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel and a notice of 20 change of address.1 ECF No. 11. 21 Generally, pro se litigants do not have a right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 22 Valdez,

560 F.3d 965, 970

(9th Cir. 2009). However, the court can request an attorney represent 23 an indigent civil litigant under certain exceptional circumstances.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(1) (“The 24 court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); see Agyeman v. 25 Corrections Corp. of America,

390 F.3d 1101, 1103

(9th Cir 2004). In determining whether such 26 circumstances exist, the court must evaluate both the plaintiff’s likelihood of “success on the 27

28 1 This motion was referred to the undersigned on January 10, 2024. ECF No. 12. 1 | merits and... the plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal 2 | issues involved.” Agyeman,

390 F.3d at 1103

(citation and internal quotation omitted). 3 Given that this action is closed, the court necessarily finds that plaintiff cannot be 4 | successful on the merits. Additionally, plaintiff is warned that the court will not respond to future 5 | filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal 6 | Rules of Appellate Procedure. 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF 8 | No. 11, is denied. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll ( ie — Dated: _ January 16, 2024 Q_—— 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown