Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00944/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00944-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE ROCIO EVANS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASIAN AMERICAN RECOVERY

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant

 /

No. 08-0944 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Before the Court is plaintiff’s request, filed March 20, 2008, for appointment of

counsel. Having read and considered the request, the Court rules as follows.

 Because plaintiff will not be subjected to any possible loss of physical liberty if she

does not prevail in the instant action, she has no right to appointment of counsel, see

Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), nor are funds available from

the district court to compensate appointed counsel. In employment actions brought under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, however, pro bono counsel may

be appointed “[u]pon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court

may deem just.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). In considering an application for

appointment of counsel under § 2000e-5(f)(1), the district court must assess three factors: 

“(1) the plaintiff's financial resources, (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel,

Case 3:08-cv-00944-EMC Document 10 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges claims of discrimination on the basis of “race or

color,” which she identifies as “Mexican race,” (see Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6), specifically, that, as a

result of discrimination, plaintiff was improperly paid and was “defamed.” (See Compl.

¶¶ 4.d., 6.) In a letter attached to her complaint, plaintiff repeats those assertions, and, in

addition, claims defendant engaged in “gender discrimination” by not “acknowledg[ing]

[plaintiff’s] professional [t]itle.” (See Compl., letter attached thereto at 1.)

In her request for appointment of counsel, plaintiff also asserts that defendant

retaliated against her after plaintiff “advocated for” clients and that one of plaintiff’s

supervisors “severely harassed” plaintiff. (See Pl.’s Letter, filed March 20, 2008, at 1.) 

Such assertions are not included in plaintiff’s complaint, however, and thus are not at issue

herein.

2

and (3) whether the plaintiff's claim has merit.” See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San

Diego, 662 F. 2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981).

Because the Court has previously granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis herein, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing with respect to her lack of financial

resources. Plaintiff’s showing with respect to her efforts to secure counsel, specifically, that

she “consulted on several occasions with attorneys at East Bay Legal Services,” (see Pl.’s

Letter, filed March 20, 2008, at 2), is not sufficient, however. Plaintiff also has not shown

that her claims have merit,1 and, indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

was “unable to conclude that the information obtained [during its investigation of plaintiff’s

claims] establishes violations of [Title VII].” (See Compl., attachment thereto.) Although

plaintiff is not bound by that finding herein, the Court finds, under the circumstances, that

plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing of merit to justify a search for volunteer counsel

willing to accept an appointment.

Accordingly, plaintiff's request is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00944-EMC Document 10 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 2