Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05721/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05721-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: Application for Naturalization

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GUSTAVO VILLANUEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONDOLEEZA RICE, AS SECRETARY

OF THE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF STATE ET AL.,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C- 07-5721 PVT

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

A court may “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 1

 However, the statute does not authorize courts to require counsel to

represent litigants proceeding in forma pauperis, but only to request such representation on a pro

bono basis. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-07 (1989). The

appointment of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1) is limited to cases presenting exceptional

circumstances. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004);

see also Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

Case 5:07-cv-05721-JW Document 11 Filed 12/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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 At the time the Ninth Circuit decided Wilborn and Aldabe, the provision addressing

appointment of counsel under the federal IFP statute was section 1915(d). The Prison Litigation

Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-135, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (hereinafter “PLRA”), subsequently

redesignated section 1915(d) as section 1915(e). There is no indication in the case law that the

PLRA modified the “exceptional circumstances” standard.

ORDER, page 2

1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980).2

 A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of

both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 133.

In this case, Plaintiff has not requested to proceed in forma pauperis. Indeed, his income

level of almost $100,000 per year precludes him from obtaining that status. Section 1915(e)

applies only to litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. Moreover, Plaintiff’s extensive complaint

indicates that he is capable of sufficiently articulating his claims. Accordingly, the request for

appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff also moves for appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (a), which

provides: 

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right

in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give

evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the

security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be

subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every

kind, and to no other.

42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Plaintiff does not appear to assert a claim under Section 1981(a). 

Additionally, Section 1981(a) does not appear to provide for appointment of counsel. 

Title VII provides for appointment of counsel: “Upon application by the complainant

and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such

complainant and may authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees,

costs or security.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Plaintiff, however, has not stated a claim under

Title VII and the Court cannot appoint counsel under Title VII absent a valid claim. 

Finally, even if the Court evaluated Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII’s standards for

appointment of counsel, Plaintiff would still not be entitled to the appointment of counsel.

Case 5:07-cv-05721-JW Document 11 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER, page 3

When determining whether to appoint counsel under section 2000e-5(f)(1), a court is required to

assess three factors: (1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the plaintiff’s efforts to secure

counsel; and (3) the meritoriousness of plaintiff’s claim. Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San

Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated neither that he

lacks to resources to secure counsel nor any efforts to secure counsel. Accordingly, even if the

court were to apply the standards of appointment under Title VII, Plaintiff would not qualify.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel is Denied.

Dated: December 6, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05721-JW Document 11 Filed 12/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER, page 4

copies mailed on 12/7/07 to:

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Gustavo T Villanueva

1301 Cougar Creek Drive

Patterson, CA 95363 

/s/ Carolyn Frantz for 

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:07-cv-05721-JW Document 11 Filed 12/07/07 Page 4 of 4