Michael Allen v. United States, et al.

Summary

The District of Maryland denied Michael Allen’s motions for leave to amend his complaint, entry of default against the State of Maryland and the United States, and appointment of counsel. The court held that the proposed amended complaint was futile because it did not cure pleading, jurisdictional, sovereign-immunity, standing, or other substantive deficiencies. The court ordered the case closed.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim within the court's subject matter jurisdiction and would not survive a motion to dismiss.
2. Entry of default was properly denied because plaintiff failed to show that either defendant failed to plead or otherwise defend against the action.
3. Appointment of counsel was properly denied because plaintiff did not present a colorable claim or exceptional circumstances warranting discretionary appointment of counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend when the proposed amended complaint was facially deficient and would not survive a motion to dismiss.
2. Whether entry of default was warranted against the State of Maryland or the United States under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
3. Whether plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Disposition

other