Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00566/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00566-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEILA MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CA DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00566-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL AND INFORMING 

PLAINTIFF THAT ANY FUTURE FILINGS 

NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL 

RULES OF CIVIL OR APPELLATE 

PROCEDURE WILL BE DISREGARDED

ECF No. 11

On February 14, 2023, the court closed this case due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

ECF No. 9. Several months later, plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel and a notice of 

change of address.1 ECF No. 11. 

Generally, pro se litigants do not have a right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the court can request an attorney represent 

an indigent civil litigant under certain exceptional circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The 

court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); see Agyeman v. 

Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir 2004). In determining whether such 

circumstances exist, the court must evaluate both the plaintiff’s likelihood of “success on the 

1 This motion was referred to the undersigned on January 10, 2024. ECF No. 12. 

Case 2:22-cv-00566-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

merits and . . . the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved.” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (citation and internal quotation omitted).

Given that this action is closed, the court necessarily finds that plaintiff cannot be

successful on the merits. Additionally, plaintiff is warned that the court will not respond to future 

filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF 

No. 11, is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00566-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 2