Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02725/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02725-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REV. WESLEY CRAWFORD SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LISA M. MOORE, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-CV-2725 JAM AC (PS) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is proceeding on a complaint that alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 

2000a, et seq. (Title II of the Civil Rights Act) and 2000e, et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act). Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request that the court appoint him counsel.1

I. SECTION 1983 

District courts may not require counsel to represent indigent litigants in § 1983 cases. 

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, where willing counsel 

is available, the district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). 

 

1

 Defendant has also filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, but plaintiff has until March 25, 2015 

to respond to that motion. 

Case 2:14-cv-02725-JAM-AC Document 9 Filed 02/23/15 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

The district court may appoint such counsel where “exceptional circumstances” exist. 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 906 (2010) (citing 

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103). In determining whether or not exceptional circumstances exist, “a 

court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner 

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 

560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Circumstances 

common to most pro se litigants, such as lack of formal legal education, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. See, 

e.g., Guess v. Lopez, 2014 WL 1883875 at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (Claire, M.J.). Having considered 

the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of 

demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. 

II. TITLE II AND VII 

“Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem 

just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant . . ..” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1).2 

In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court considers: (1) plaintiff's financial resources; 

(2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his own; and (3) the merits of plaintiff's 

claim. Brown v. Continental Can Co., 765 F.2d 810, 814 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Plaintiff has submitted a 22-page request for counsel, but he has not addressed whether he 

has the financial resources to hire an attorney, nor what efforts he has made to secure counsel – 

including pro bono counsel – on his own. As for the merits of his Title II (discrimination in 

public accommodations) and VII (discrimination in employment) claims, plaintiff’s request for 

counsel tends to show that his claims have no merit under those provisions, as the request 

indicates that whatever injury plaintiff has suffered is the result of his whistle-blower activity, and 

not because of his race or other classification protected by Title II or VII. Plaintiff has thus failed 

to show that the court should appoint counsel pursuant to Title II or VII. 

//// 

 

2

 Title II of the Civil Rights Act contains an identical provision. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a). 

Case 2:14-cv-02725-JAM-AC Document 9 Filed 02/23/15 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

III. CONCLUSION 

The court notes that plaintiff filed his request for counsel soon after defendant moved to 

dismiss the case. Plaintiff is cautioned that his request for counsel does not serve as his response 

to the dismissal motion, nor does it relieve him of his obligation to file a response to the dismissal 

motion. His opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to that motion (ECF No. 7) must be 

served and filed no later than March 25, 2015. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 8), is DENIED without prejudice. 

DATED: February 23, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-02725-JAM-AC Document 9 Filed 02/23/15 Page 3 of 3