Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03521/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03521-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Unfortunately, Congress has not authorized funds to pay court-appointed counsel. 

Therefore, an order appointing counsel is little more than a call for a lawyer to volunteer to

work without any assurance of being compensated. See Bradshaw v. United States Dist.

Court for the Southern Dist. of Cal., 742 F.2d 515, 516 (9th Cir. 1984).

*E-filed 8/2/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GURMAIL S. BATH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General United

States Postal Service,

Defendant. /

No. C07- 03521 HRL

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Docket No. 4

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that his

termination was discriminatory. According to the plaintiff, the alleged discrimination was

based on his religion, national origin, and disability. Presently before the court is his Request

for Appointment of Counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B). 

The appointment of counsel is authorized “[u]pon application by the complainant and in

such circumstances as the court may deem just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B).1

 Courts

consider three factors in determining whether to appoint counsel under Title VII: (1) the

plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) plaintiff's efforts to secure counsel; and (3) whether the

Case 5:07-cv-03521-JW Document 5 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Alternatively, Plaintiff may consider contacting the following organizations for

possible assistance in obtaining representation:

Santa Clara County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service

4 North Second Street, Suite 400

San Jose, CA 95113

Phone: (408) 287-2557

Fax: (408) 287-6083

http://www.sccba.com

Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center

South Bay Clinic

Alexander Community Law Center

1030 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 

Tuesdays 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM (By appointment only)

Phone: (408) 288-7030

2

claims have merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir.

1981).

The court has insufficient information to conclude if his claim has merit and, likewise,

Plaintiff’s request does not include any information about his financial situation. Therefore,

this request is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may at a later time file a renewed request

which contains more information with respect to the three categories noted above. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/2/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-03521-JW Document 5 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO: 

Gurmail S. Bath

3870 Quimby Road

San Jose, CA 95148

Date: 8/2/07

 /s/KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-03521-JW Document 5 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3