Beckendorf v. Fleischman ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FRANK WILLIAM BECKENDORF, III, CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 21-1357 DANIEL FLEISCHMAN, ET AL. SECTION: “T”(5) ORDER ON MOTION SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 APPEARANCES: MOTION: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Rec. doc. 12). (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify a Class and Add Additional Plaintiffs (Rec. doc. 13). : Continued to : No opposition. : Opposition. ORDERED : Dismissed as moot. : Dismissed for failure of counsel to appear. : Granted. 1, 2 : Denied. 1. Denied after considering the factors set forth in Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982). 2. As a non-attorney pro se Plaintiff, Beckendorf fails to satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Bowen v. Bureau of Prisons of United States, No. 20-CV-0062, 2020 WL 8678786 at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2020) (and cases cited therein), adopted, 2021 WL 796039 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2021). Plaintiff’s request to add as Plaintiffs the finite number of individuals identified in his motion is denied without prejudice as said individuals have not submitted separate applications to proceed in forma pauperis. : Other. MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2