Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01884/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01884-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Nolan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the

Department of the Interior, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1884-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Nolan filed a Motion for Court Appointed Attorney on December

12, 2008. (Doc. #5). Based on Plaintiff’s attachments to his original (Doc. #1) and Amended

Complaints (Doc. #10), he made claims of discrimination before the Merit Systems

Protection Board (“MSPB”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

The Court therefore will treat this matter as an employment discrimination case, but only for

the purposes of deciding the Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. #5).

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for employment discrimination

claims. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). But

the 1964 Civil Rights Act “provides for appointment of counsel in employment

discrimination cases in such circumstances as the court may deem just.” Bradshaw v.

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

omitted). In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court must consider: “(1) the

plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3)

Case 2:08-cv-01884-JAT Document 15 Filed 04/03/09 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

- 2 -

whether the plaintiff’s claim has merit.” Id.

Plaintiff submitted a Declaration with his Motion that states he currently receives a

federal pension of $4703 monthly gross and owns a home. He calculates a negative net

worth for himself, however, because of the amounts owed on several credit cards. Plaintiff

does not list the amount he has to pay on each of those cards a month. Even though the

Plaintiff has credit card debt, the Court finds he has sufficient financial resources to retain

an attorney if he should choose to do so.

Plaintiff states in his Motion that he has attempted to make contact with “each of the

lawyer referral services in the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, outlined in the court

handout and I have not been successful.” Plaintiff does not indicate whether he has

attempted to find counsel to represent him on a contingency basis. Nonetheless, the Court

finds he has made reasonable efforts to secure counsel.

The Court’s discussion of the merits of Plaintiff’s claim will also lead to a ruling on

Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint or in the Alternative Motion

for More Definite Statement (Doc. #13). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #10) reads,

in its entirety:

I, Richard Nolan, Appellant, hereby file a petition to amend the

initial filing of Wrongful Termination on December 5, 2006.

I hereby appeal the attached decision of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concerning Breach of

Settlement Agreement. The settlement agreement is dated

February 11, 2000 and is attached.

The breach of settlement agreement appeal was initially filed

with the Equal Employment Opportuni9th [sic] Commission

(EEOC), Office of Federal Operations (OFO) on January 19,

2007, and (EEOC docket #0120071379). Nearly 21 months

later, on September 16, 2008, I received a final decision by the

EEOC OFO. That decision was a denial of reconsideration

dated September 11, 2008 (Attached).

The appellant hereby requests the court to appoint an attorney to

represent me and waive any fees, costs, or other security.

Jurisdiction

U.S. Government Defendant (See attached DENIAL)

Case 2:08-cv-01884-JAT Document 15 Filed 04/03/09 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

- 3 -

EEOC Request No. 0520090058

Appeal No. 0120071379

Complaint

Appeal of EEOC decision - Breach of Settlement Agreement.

Civil Rights, Employment, [442]}.

Demand

Require the Agency (Bureau of Land Management Department

of the Interior), comply with, and abide by the provisions of the

settlement agreement dated February 11, 2000. Order the

Agency to reverse any and all actions taken after April 1, 2006,

to the present, including, but not limited to, reinstatement of the

plaintiff to the position he occupied at the BLM Arizona State

Office on December 5, 2006, date of termination.

Retain enforcement authority for any future violations or

breaches.

(Doc. #10, pp.1-3). Attached to the Amended Complaint is a decision of the EEOC.

Plaintiff’s original Complaint purported to “appeal from” another EEOC determination and

contained a much longer “Demand” section. 

First and foremost, Plaintiff cannot appeal final decisions of the EEOC to this Court.

Plaintiff must file a separate, independent claim over which this Court has jurisdiction.

Further, Plaintiff’s pleading must meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8. Under Rule 8, the complaint must contain, “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Without some factual allegation in the

complaint, a Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirement of providing not only “fair notice” of

the nature of the claim, but also the “grounds” on which the claim rests. Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 n.3 (2007).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint falls far short of meeting Rule 8's minimal pleading

standards. Plaintiff has not stated an adequate basis for jurisdiction and has not alleged his

legal theories for relief. Nor does the Amended Complaint contain a short and plain

statement of the facts that would put Defendant on notice regarding the bases of his claims.

The Court cannot discern that Plaintiff’s claim has any merit. Because the Court finds that

Plaintiff has the financial resources to retain an attorney and that his current claim has no

Case 2:08-cv-01884-JAT Document 15 Filed 04/03/09 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

- 4 -

merit, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Appointment an Attorney.

The Court’s discussion of the merits of Plaintiff’s claim naturally leads to a ruling on

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss/More Definite Statement. The Court has stated that

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8. Rather than the dismiss the action, however, the Court will give Plaintiff

one more chance to amend his pleading. 

The Court cautions Plaintiff that all his claims against Defendant must be in the

amended pleading. Plaintiff cannot incorporate claims or arguments from earlier pleadings

– every thing must be in the Second Amended Complaint. Also, Plaintiff must state his legal

theories for relief, i.e., violation of Title VII, etc., and must give a short, plain statement of

the facts that demonstrates entitlement to relief under those theories. The Court warns

Plaintiff that if he fails to file the Second Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss this

case for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Appointed Attorney (Doc.

#5).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, BUT

GRANTING Defendant’s Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. #13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint

by Monday, April 27, 2009. If Plaintiff does not file his Second Amended Complaint by that

date, the Clerk of the Court shall automatically dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 41(b)

without further order of the Court.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01884-JAT Document 15 Filed 04/03/09 Page 4 of 4