Frost v. Pinkus et al

Filing 9

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denying without prejudice 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

VINTON P. FROST,

Case No. 17-cv-01308-LB

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL REPRESENTATION

v.

14
15

GARY S. PINKUS, et al.,

16

Defendants.

Re: ECF No. 7

On March 10, 2017, pro se plaintiff Vinton P. Frost filed a complaint against defendants Gary

17
18

S. Pinkus and the United States Pro Se Counsel.1 He filed an application to proceed in forma

19

pauperis, which the court granted.2 The court was unable to discern a federal claim in Mr. Frost’s

20

complaint, and dismissed it with leave to amend.3 Mr. Frost has since amended his complaint.4

21

Mr. Frost also requests that the court appoint a volunteer to serve as “replacement pro se

22

counsel.”5 But because this case does not exhibit the exceptional circumstances that warrant

23

appointment of counsel, the court denies the motion.

24
1

Complaint ‒ ECF No. 1.

2

ECF Nos. 3, 4.

3

Order – ECF No. 6.

27

4

First Amended Compl. – ECF No. 8.

28

5

Motion to Appoint Counsel – ECF No. 7.

25
26

ORDER — No. 17-cv-01308-LB