Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02313/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02313-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

*E-Filed: June 24, 2015*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRIS L. WINNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02313-HRL 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Plaintiff Harris L. Winns was employed as a Sales & Services/Distribution Associate at the 

U.S. Postal Service. His employment was terminated in October 2014. Plaintiff filed an appeal 

challenging his termination, which an administrative law judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff filed a petition for review, and the United States Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed 

the initial decision issued by the administrative law judge. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, now sues 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, Megan Brennan (Postmaster General), and the U.S. Postal 

Service, challenging the final order issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Plaintiff has 

filed a motion to appoint counsel.

A district court may appoint counsel “[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). “Three factors are 

relevant to a trial court’s determination of whether to appoint counsel: (1) the plaintiff’s financial 

resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his or her own; and (3) the 

merit of the plaintiff’s claim.” Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 27 F.3d 415, 416–17 (9th Cir.

Case 5:15-cv-02313-HRL Document 9 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1994) (quotation omitted).

In his motion, Plaintiff does not indicate that he has made any effort to retain any private 

attorney to handle his claim. In addition, although the court refrains from ruling on the merits of 

Plaintiff’s claim at this time, Plaintiff has not shown that the potential merit of his claim warrants 

the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the second and third factors in Johnson weigh against 

appointing counsel. The motion to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02313-HRL Document 9 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2