Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00794/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00794-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - 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

Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 4/19/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LARRY JAMES HENSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, S. MILBURN, S.

BARBU, W. HAWKINS, AND G. PATASH, 

 Defendants.

Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

[re: docket no. 5]

Plaintiff Larry James Henson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action on February 17, 2010,

alleging that Defendants Embassy Suites Hotel, S. Milburn, S. Barbu, W. Hawkins, and G.

Patash (collectively, “Defendants”) discriminated against and terminated him because of his

disability, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On March 9, 2010, after

reviewing the financial information provided by Plaintiff, the Court determined that Plaintiff

could pay the filing fee and denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). IFP

Application at 2-3 (indicating that Plaintiff received $1,124.00 in monthly unemployment

insurance, that his wife received $1,734.00 in monthly social security insurance). Plaintiff now

requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B), a district court may appoint counsel in Title VII

cases "in such circumstances as the court may deem just." In determining whether to appoint

Case 5:10-cv-00794-LHK Document 6 Filed 04/19/10 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

Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(JFLC1)

counsel, the Court must assess three factors: “(1) the plaintiff's financial resources; (2) the efforts

made by the plaintiff to secure counsel; and (3) whether the plaintiff's claim has merit.” See

Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation

omitted). 

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the

same reason, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel. In addition

to having adequate financial resources, Plaintiff has not satisfied the second factor of the

Bradshaw test, as his effort to secure counsel has been limited to contacting four attorneys. 

Application at 3. Plaintiff need not “exhaust the legal directory,” Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1319

(citation omitted), but he should at least contact a California State Bar-approved lawyer referral

service. Guidelines for Fed. Pro Bono Project of N.D. Cal. (the “Guidelines”) ¶ 1. Nor does he

explain why the attorneys he did contact declined to take his case. Application at 3. Because

Plaintiff fails to satisfy the first two Bradshaw factors, the Court expresses no opinion as to

whether Plaintiff’s claim has merit. Good cause therefor appearing, the application for

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2010

_____________________________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00794-LHK Document 6 Filed 04/19/10 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

Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Larry James Henson

1307 Soto Street

Seaside, CA 93955

Case 5:10-cv-00794-LHK Document 6 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 3