Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00234/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00234-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW ADELEYE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 16cv234-LAB (RBB)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

GRANTING THE CITY OF SAN

DIEGO’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND

ORDERING ADELEYE TO PROVIDE A

CURRENT ADDRESS

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

I. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Matthew Adeleye filed a request for appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. §

2000e–5(f)(1), which provides for appointment of counsel for claims of employment

discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Americans with

Disabilities Act. (Docket no. 10); McChain v. Veterans Admin., 2011 WL 108547, at *1 (S.D.

Cal. Jan. 11, 2011). Since this case doesn’t arise under either act, the Court construes the

request as a motion to appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See id. Section

1915(e)(1) gives district courts discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons in

“exceptional circumstances.” Id. “A finding of exceptional circumstances 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.” Id. (internal

- 1 - 16cv234

Case 3:16-cv-00234-LAB-RBB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

quotation marks omitted). Some courts also look at the plaintiff’s attempts to secure counsel

on his or her own. See Howard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1622981, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr.

10, 2015) (“While Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is hard to estimate at this

stage, if he is likely to succeed, that suggests . . . that he could probably find a private

attorney to take the case for him.”).

Adeleye declares that he contacted three attorneys; two wanted “a large amount of

money” and the third wasn’t interested. (Docket no. 10 at 3.) Adeleye’s efforts were

insufficient. Cf. Williams v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 2014 WL 7404604, at *3 (D. Haw.

Dec. 30, 2014) (denying a request under § 2000e–5(f)(1), and reasoning that plaintiffs’

attempts to obtain counsel were insufficient where the plaintiff contacted only seven

attorneys); see also Turner v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 6571413, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 13,

2010) (same). At this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the Court DENIES Adeleye’s

motion without prejudice.

II. Motion to Dismiss Claims Against the City of San Diego

Adeleye and J.H.’s complaint doesn’t allege any facts involving the City of San Diego;

the allegations all relate to the County of San Diego and its social workers. So the City’s

unopposed motion to dismiss the claims against it (Docket no. 12) is GRANTED and the

claims against the City of San Diego are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Adeleye

and J.H. choose to file an amended complaint to assert claims against the City, they must

do so by October 17, 2016.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 16cv234

Case 3:16-cv-00234-LAB-RBB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

III. Mail Returned as Undeliverable

Under Civil Local Rule 83.11(b):

A party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised

as to current address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the

plaintiff’s last designated address is returned by the Post Office, and if such

plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter

of the plaintiff’s current address, the court may dismiss the action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

On June 22, 2016, mail sent to Adeleye was returned as undeliverable. (Docket no. 14.) 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.11(b), the Court will dismiss this action without

prejudice if Adeleye doesn’t notify the Court and all parties of his current address by

November 21, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv234

Case 3:16-cv-00234-LAB-RBB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 3