Daria v. Sapient, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND DISMISSING CLAIMS SUA SPONTE by Judge William Alsup denying 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 11/6/2017, a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. (Filed on 11/6/2017) Modified on 11/6/2017 (afmS, 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 HALEY DARIA, No. C 17-05453 WHA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Plaintiff, SAPIENT INC, et al. Defendants. / 15 16 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND DISMISSING CLAIMS SUA SPONTE v. Pro se plaintiff Haley Daria moves for appointment of counsel. Generally, a person has 17 no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 18 However, a court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil 19 litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). Ibid. To determine whether “exceptional 20 circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as 21 the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 22 issues involved.” Ibid. 23 Having reviewed Daria’s filings, it is clear that she is not likely to succeed on the merits 24 of her claims. Indeed, by her own admission she has pursued numerous similar claims in state 25 court, which have failed and have resulted in her designation as a vexatious litigant in the 26 California Courts (Dkt. No. 14-1; Vexatious Litigant List, Administrative Office of the Courts 27 of the State of California). Her opaque and prolix complaint is only “complex” by her own 28 making, and does not contain legal issues meriting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, her motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 1 2 3 Additionally, this order finds that dismissal of Daria’s entire complaint is now appropriate. Daria filed a similar complaint based on the same basic underlying allegations against 4 the same defendants in 2015 before Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu Haley Daria v. Kathleen 5 Hurly, et al., Case No. 15-cv-00970 DMR. Judge Ryu first dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, 6 noting that it was “impossible to determine a clear basis for her claims as the amended 7 complaint consists of incoherent statements about incidents, documents, and prior lawsuit(s) 8 without any context or background. It is also impossible to determine what facts support each 9 cause of action.” Id. Dkt. No. 8 at 3. Plaintiff then amended her complaint, but it suffered from similar defects, and accordingly Judge Ryu dismissed the action. Id. Dkt. No. 12. Judge Ryu 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 then revoked Daria’s in forma pauperis status on appeal finding that there were no valid 12 grounds for appeal, and the appeal was not taken in good faith. Id. Dkt. No. 16. Subsequently, 13 plaintiff abandoned her appeal. 14 Daria now appears to attempt an end-run around the appeals process by filing a highly 15 similar complaint in this Court. For the same reasons set forth in Judge Ryu’s order dismissing 16 plaintiff’s action, this order finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can 17 be granted, and therefore her action is DISMISSED. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE THE FILE. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 Dated: November 6, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?