Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05800/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05800-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BELINDA M. TRAVIS, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

JOHN E. POTTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:03-CV-05800-SMS

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

(DOC. 8)

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the case has been

assigned to the Magistrate Judge to conduct all further

proceedings, including trial and the entry of a final judgment. 

On January 5, 2004, Plaintiff filed a first amended

complaint. Contained within the complaint on the last page was a

request for an attorney. Plaintiff stated that she could not

afford to hire an attorney, had tried to find an attorney but had

not been successful, and requested the appointment of counsel.

The request was not noted in the title of the document or set for

a hearing. The request was not signed under penalty of perjury,

and Plaintiff gave no details regarding her efforts to hire

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 30 Filed 01/23/06 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

counsel.

Although Plaintiff’s request was not properly before the

Court, in an abundance of caution, the Court will consider

Plaintiff’s request. 

The Court may request an attorney voluntarily to represent a

person proceeding in forma pauperis who is unable to afford

counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appointment of counsel by the Court

in such circumstances is discretionary, not mandatory. United

States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir.

1995). Appointment may be made if a court finds that there are

exceptional circumstances after evaluating the likelihood of

success on the merits and the ability of the party to articulate

her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved; the factors must be viewed together. Terrell v. Brewer,

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, this Court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Without a

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this

court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

exceptional cases. 

In light of the failure of Plaintiff to make any showing

regarding the merits of her case, the Court cannot make a

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Further, despite Plaintiff’s

assertions to the contrary, Plaintiff’s claims are not

particularly complex, and only one party defendant is involved.

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 30 Filed 01/23/06 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

Plaintiff has proceeded with this action since the filing of the

first amended complaint without raising the issue of

representation by counsel; it does not appear that Plaintiff is

incapable of prosecuting this action. To the contrary, Plaintiff

appears to be capable of articulating her claims pro se.

In the present case, the court does not find the required

exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff

is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations

which, if proved, would entitle her to relief, his case is not

exceptional. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel, filed January 5, 2004, IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 30 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 3