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).

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