Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00248/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00248-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES E. MUNSON

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0248 DFL CMK 

vs.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, 

Secretary of the Navy, et al.

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in this action. The gravamen of plaintiff’s

February 3, 2004 complaint is that he was discriminated against in employment based on his race

in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B).

Any successful application for appointment of counsel must comply with criteria

set forth in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Before

appointing counsel to plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bradshaw requires the court to

consider (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts already made by plaintiff to secure

counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 1318. Appointment of

counsel is not a matter of right. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F. 2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 2:04-cv-00248-JAM-CMK Document 29 Filed 05/10/06 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

2

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the first factor, which relates to

his financial condition, is a fortiori resolved in his favor. In previous correspondence the court,

plaintiff has stated that he has attempted to obtain representation and that he contacted a lawyer’s

referral service in San Francisco. While the court gives plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, it does

not appear from the record that plaintiff has been very diligent in seeking legal representation,

and the court resolves the second factor against plaintiff. Finally, a fair reading of plaintiff’s

complaint does not reveal a high likelihood of success on the merits. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel (doc. 27) is denied.

DATED: May 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00248-JAM-CMK Document 29 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2