Narayan v. County of Sacramento, 2:19-cv-00466 TLN CKD PS. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190808927
Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court are pro se plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and motion for permanent injunction. (ECF Nos. 25, 26.) Neither motion has been properly noticed. According to the Local Rules: all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary eviden
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court are pro se plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and motion for permanent injunction. (ECF Nos. 25, 26.) Neither motion has been properly noticed. According to the Local Rules: all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidenc..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court are pro se plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and motion for permanent injunction. (ECF Nos. 25, 26.) Neither motion has been properly noticed. According to the Local Rules:
all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in support of the motion. The matter shall be set for hearing on the motion calendar of the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the action has been assigned or before whom the motion is to be heard not less than twenty-eight (28) days after service and filing of the motion.
E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(b).
Moreover, on the present showing, the court does not find that appointment of counsel for plaintiff is warranted in this matter. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) ("counsel may be designated under [28 U.S.C.] section 1915(d) only in `exceptional circumstances' . . . [which] requires an evaluation of both `the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'"); see also Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1319 (9th Cir. 1981) (in exercising discretion as to whether to appoint counsel in Title VII case under 42 U.S.C. § 2000-5(f)(1)(B), a court should consider plaintiff's financial resources, efforts made by plaintiff to secure counsel, and whether plaintiff's claims have merit).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 25) and plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction (ECF No. 26) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
