Rose v. Plastikon Ind.

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS re 60 MOTION to Subpoena List of Names filed by Willie Rose, III, 62 MOTION to Forward Disparate Treatment and Constructive Discharge filed by Willie Rose, III, 58 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by Willie Rose, III, 61 MOTION to Request a Representative by the Court filed by Willie Rose, III. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 5, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIE ROSE III, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 10-04355 WHA Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PRETRIAL MOTIONS PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. / Pro se plaintiff Willie Rose filed several motions in anticipation of his upcoming trial 17 (Dkt. Nos. 58–62). Although his first motion is titled, “motion to add correction to statement of 18 complaints,” the body of the motion contains only his trial brief and exhibits (Dkt. No. 58). Even 19 if this filing is construed as a motion to amend the complaint, the motion is denied for reasons 20 stated in a recent order on the same issue (Dkt. No. 54). Rose’s second motion is titled, “motion 21 to subpoena list of names” (Dkt. No. 60). If plaintiff wants to serve subpoenas on non-party 22 witnesses, then he should first request blank subpoenas from the Clerk’s Office (see Pro Se 23 Handbook at Chapter 15). Rose’s third motion is titled, “motion to forward disparate treatment 24 and constructive discharge” (Dkt. No. 62). It is unclear from the title or the body of the motion 25 what Rose is requesting. This motion is denied. 26 Rose’s final motion is titled, “motion to request a representative,” although the body of the 27 motion is largely the same as “his motion to subpoena list of names.” This order will construe 28 this motion as a request for counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. 1 Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Section 1915 confers on a district 2 court only the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma 3 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make “coercive 4 appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). In 5 short, the Court has only the power to ask pro bono counsel to represent plaintiff, not the power to 6 “appoint” counsel. Rose is capable of presenting his claims effectively, and the issues are not 7 complex. Consequently, his motion is denied. 8 For the reasons stated, Rose’s pretrial motions are Denied. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: January 5, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?