Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Amerra Portee v. Mr. Fernando Owner of Little C...
Routine Enforcement Added Final

Amerra Portee v. Mr. Fernando Owner of Little Caesars et al - Motion for Representation Denied

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com US District Court DMT Docket Feed
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff Amerra Portee's Motion for Representation (Doc. 8), finding no exceptional circumstances warranting court-appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The ruling, dated March 27, 2026 in case No. CV-26-14-GF-JTJ, applies the Ninth Circuit standard requiring evaluation of both likelihood of success on the merits and the litigant's ability to articulate claims pro se.

“IT IS ORDERED that Portee's Motion for Representation (Doc. 8) is DENIED.”

Published by D. Mont. on courtlistener.com . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors US District Court DMT Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 6 changes logged to date.

What changed

The court denied plaintiff's Motion for Representation filed March 23, 2026, applying the exceptional circumstances test established in Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991), which requires evaluation of likelihood of success on the merits and the litigant's ability to articulate claims pro se in light of legal complexity.

The ruling is a routine procedural order that does not create compliance obligations for any regulated industry. It is binding only on the parties to this case and has no precedential effect beyond standard application of the in forma pauperis counsel provision.

Archived snapshot

Apr 26, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project
, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Amerra Portee v. Mr. Fernando, Owner of Little Caesars; Mr. Darryl, Manager of Little Caesars

District Court, D. Montana

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

AMERRA PORTEE,

No. CV-26-14-GF-JTJ
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
MR. FERNANDO, OWNER OF
LITTLE CAESARS;
MR. DARRYL, MANAGER OF
LITTLE CEASARS

Defendants.

On March 23, 2026, Plaintiff Amerra Portee (“Portee”) filed a Motion for
Representation. (Doc. 8).
Civil litigants do not have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel.
Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654
F.2d 1349, 1353
(9th Cir. 1981)). In limited circumstances, the Court “may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). To
warrant appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1), there must be a showing of
“exceptional circumstances,” which “requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of
success on the merits and the ability of the [litigant] to articulate [her] claims pro se in
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,
1017
(9th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted). The Court finds Portee has not
demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Portee’s Motion for Representation (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
DATED this 27th day of March 2026.

a Sota Tohnston =
United States Magistrate Judge

Named provisions

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

Citations

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) statutory authority for in forma pauperis counsel requests

Get daily alerts for US District Court DMT Docket Feed

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from D. Mont..

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
D. Mont.
Filed
March 27th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Minor
Document ID
No. CV-26-14-GF-JTJ
Docket
CV-26-14-GF-JTJ

Who this affects

Applies to
Consumers Legal professionals
Industry sector
4411 Retail Trade
Activity scope
Civil litigation Motion practice In forma pauperis proceedings
Geographic scope
United States US

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Employment & Labor

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when US District Court DMT Docket Feed publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!