Anthony Oliver v. Scram of California, Inc. et al

Filing 24

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT THE PLAINTIFF COUNSEL 12 by Judge Christina A. Snyder. In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
CV17-4735-CAS(PLAx)
Date August 15, 2017
ANTHONY OLIVER v. SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; ET AL.

Present: The Honorable 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 

Not Present 

Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

Proceedings:  

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT THE
PLAINTIFF COUNSEL (Filed July 21, 2017, dkt. 12)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; CD. Cal. L.R. 7–15. Accordingly, the hearing date of August 21,
2017 is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
On June 27, 2017, plaintiff Anthony Oliver (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint pro se
against defendants Scram of California, Inc., Alcohol Monitoring Systems, and Does 110, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§§ 17200 et seq. and California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§
17500 et seq. Dkt. 1. On June 30, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Dkt. 8. On July 22, 2017, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
adding as defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Xavier Becerra in their respective
individual capacities as Governor and Attorney General of the State of California. Dkt.
19. The amended complaint asserted two additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
requested injunctive relief. Id. dkt. 19. Pending before this Court is plaintiff’s motion,
filed July 21, 2017, requesting that this Court appoint counsel to represent him pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Dkt. 12.
“[I]t is well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in
civil cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). However,
“[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This statute does not authorize courts to require counsel to
represent such litigants, but only to request representation on a pro bono basis. See
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989). An appointment of counsel
may be designated under § 1915(e)(1) only in “exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v.

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
CV17-4735-CAS(PLAx)
Date August 15, 2017
ANTHONY OLIVER v. SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; ET AL.

Escaleron, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “When determining whether
‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the
merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.’ ” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.
2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
At this point in the proceedings, the Court is unable to make a determination that
plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Defendants have not yet filed an
answer or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 However,
based on the present record, plaintiff’s claims are not complex, and plaintiff has thus far
been able to articulate his claims pro se. Based on these considerations, the Court does
not find the requisite exceptional circumstances exist in this case to warrant appointment
of counsel at this time.
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

: 
00 
                       CMJ 

00 

1

In a related case, Hansen v. Scram of California, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01474CAS(PLAx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2017), the Court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)
motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. Id. at *6.

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2