Rosenberg v. Reddit, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-00820
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rosenberg v. Reddit, Judge Breyer granted more time to amend the complaint but denied counsel because no plausible claim had yet been stated.
Douglas Rosenberg, who received more time to amend his complaint but was denied appointed counsel at this stage of the case.
What happened
In Rosenberg v. Reddit, Inc., self-represented plaintiff Douglas Rosenberg asked for 30 more days to file an amended complaint after the court identified problems with his original complaint during required screening.
The court granted the deadline extension and ordered Rosenberg to file the amended complaint by October 20, 2023. Rosenberg also asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
Judge Breyer denied the request for appointed counsel because Rosenberg had not yet filed a complaint stating a claim for which relief could be granted, and the court could not yet determine whether exceptional circumstances justified seeking volunteer counsel.
The detailed version
- Rosenberg v. Reddit, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-00820
- Charles Breyer
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
Self-represented plaintiff Douglas Rosenberg filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court allowed Rosenberg to file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies identified in the screening order by September 11, 2023.
Motions and Rulings
Rosenberg moved for a 30-day extension of the deadline to file his amended complaint. The court granted the motion and ordered him to file the amended complaint no later than October 20, 2023.
Rosenberg also moved for appointment of counsel. The court explained that indigent litigants generally do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may seek volunteer counsel for an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” considering the likelihood of success on the merits and the litigant’s ability to present the case.
Disposition
Judge Charles Breyer denied the motion to appoint counsel. The court stated that Rosenberg had not yet filed a complaint stating a claim on which relief could be granted, that the motion did not explain why he was entitled to this extraordinary remedy, and that the proceedings were at an early stage. The court concluded that it was premature to assess Rosenberg’s likelihood of success without a plausible claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.