Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01884/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01884-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 29:754 Discrimination

---

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 - 07CV1884 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY J. BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV1884 WQH (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

COURTESY CHEVROLET CENTER, INC.,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Terry J. Butler’s motion for appointment of counsel.

(Doc. # 3).

BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2007, Plaintiff Terry J. Butler filed a Complaint against Defendant Courtesy

Chevrolet Center, Inc. alleging claims for (1) violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (2) violation

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (3) breach of contract, and (4) intentional infliction of

emotional distress. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate

Plaintiff after Plaintiff suffered an injury at work, and retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a worker’s

compensation claim. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant created a hostile work environment.

On September 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc.

# 3). Plaintiff asserts that he is not employed and has been unable to secure the assistance of counsel.

Plaintiff states that he owns $3,500 in cash, but no other property, and lists $2,160 in month payments

to creditors.

Case 3:07-cv-01884-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 07CV1884 WQH (BLM)

DISCUSSION & ORDER

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(5)(f)(1)(B), a district court may appoint counsel “[u]pon

application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just . . . .” “In the

Title VII context, courts look primarily at three factors in determining whether to appoint counsel: ‘(1)

the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his or her

own; and (3) the merit of the plaintiff’s claim.’” Darden v. Apollo Group, Inc., No. CIV 05-264-PHXEHC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9320, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2006); quoting Johnson v. United States

Treasury Dep’t, 27 F.3d 415, 416-17 (9th Cir. 1994).

As established above, Plaintiff possesses $3,500 in cash. Though Plaintiff lists monthly

expenditures of $2,160, it is not clear that Plaintiff possesses no other valuable property, particularly

in light of the fact that Plaintiff claims a truck payment of $500 per month but does not list a truck as

an asset. Plaintiff has also not established that he diligently sought private counsel. Plaintiff notes

that a Mark Dunbar previously represented Plaintiff, and Plaintiff indicates that Dunbar is unable to

represent Plaintiff with respect to this litigation. Plaintiff also states that Dunbar referred him to other

attorneys. However, Plaintiff does not name those other attorneys as required by the request for

appointment of counsel form, and therefore the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff diligently sought

private counsel with respect to this litigation. Finally, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s

likelihood of success on the merits is sufficient to warrant counsel at this time. Plaintiff indicates that

he resigned, as opposed to being fired from his job, and there are few if any allegations which support

Plaintiff’s claim that he was forced to resign. In addition, Plaintiff does not allege the existence or the

terms of an employment contract which would be necessary for his breach of contract claim, and it

is not clear that Defendant’s conduct was outrageous enough to sustain Plaintiff’s claim for intentional

infliction of emotional distress.

/

/

/

/

/

Case 3:07-cv-01884-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 07CV1884 WQH (BLM)

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 3) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01884-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 3