Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00155-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

DELIA MAPPE MOWREY, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv0155 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document 5)

Plaintiff Delia Mappe Mowery (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and informa pauperis, seeks

assignment of counsel. On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed her complaint alleging employment

discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. On

that same date, Plaintiff filed her request that this Court assign an attorney for her plaintiff

because she does not have the financial means to do so. For the reasons discussed below, this

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for assignment of counsel.

DISCUSSION

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) provides “[u]pon application by the complainant and in such

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

complainant . . .” A court considers: “(1) the plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts made

Case 1:07-cv-00155-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/21/07 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

by the plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff’s claim has merit.” Bradshaw v.

Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Plaintiff’s papers fail to address each factor and merely suggest financial hardship. 

Although plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, she fails to address attempts to locate counsel. 

“All that can be required of plaintiffs under this aspect of the test is that they make what can be

considered a reasonably diligent effort under the circumstances.” Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1319. 

There is no suggestion that Plaintiff contacted an attorney. Plaintiff’s request also fails to

address the likelihood of success on the merits. This Court is provided no guidance as to the

grounds for and validity of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff fails to satisfy her burden to demonstrate

the slightest likelihood of success.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above and because this Court lacks funds to appoint counsel,

this Court:

1. DENIES Plaintiff’s request for assignment of counsel; and

2. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to refer this matter to this Court’s Bradshaw

panel. The Bradshaw panel consists of several local attorneys who have indicated

to the Court that they are willing to review cases sent to them by the Court to

determine if they are willing to represent pro se plaintiffs in their actions. Plaintiff

is advised that this Court is powerless to require an attorney to represent her in

this action. The Court is able only to refer the case to the Bradshaw panel. If no

attorney is willing to represent Plaintiff, she is required to represent herself. If an

attorney is willing to discuss the case with Plaintiff, the attorney’s office will

contact Plaintiff.

Despite referral to the Bradshaw panel, Plaintiff remains responsible to prosecute this

action or to dismiss it. This Court’s clerk will request Plaintiff for information to assist to 

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00155-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/21/07 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

accomplish service of process on defendant. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to comply 

with this Court’s orders and the clerk’s directions to assist with service of process and to

prosecute this action, will result in recommendation to dismiss this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00155-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 3