Velez v. OnePlus Technology Co.

Background

Adrian A. Velez filed a complaint against OnePlus Technology Co. (Shenzhen), Ltd. The opinion says the allegations may be construed as asserting a product-liability claim. Velez is proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows a party to proceed without prepaying court fees. He also moved for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer.

Service of Process

Velez did not provide an address where OnePlus could be served with the complaint. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court and the U.S. Marshals Service can assist with service. The court explained, however, that the plaintiff remains responsible for providing a current address at which each defendant can be served.

The court directed Velez to provide a service address within 30 days of the order. The court also explained that the usual 90-day service period would run from 90 days after any summonses are issued, because Velez could not serve the defendant before the court reviewed the complaint and ordered summonses issued. If Velez could not meet the deadline, the court directed him to seek an extension of time.

Motion for Counsel

The court considered the factors relevant to an indigent litigant’s request for appointed counsel, including the apparent merits of the case, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the party’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the proceedings were too early for the court to evaluate the merits, Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied the motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate that motion.

Referral and Disposition

The court referred Velez to the City Bar Justice Center’s Pro Se Law Clinic, a private organization that is not part of the court. The opinion says the clinic may be able to advise him about locating a service address, but filings must still be made through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.

The court directed Velez to provide a current service address within 30 days. If he failed to comply or failed to seek an extension, the court stated that it would dismiss the action without prejudice to refiling. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal.