Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05030/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05030-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTOINE FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OPERATION DIGNITY, INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. 07-5030 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed November 9, 2007, for appointment of

counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(b)(1). Having considered the motion, the Court rules

as follows.

 Because plaintiff will not be subjected to any possible loss of physical liberty if he

does not prevail in the instant action, he has no right to appointment of counsel, see

Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), nor are funds available from

the district court to compensate appointed counsel. In an action alleging a violation of the

Fair Housing Act, however, a district court has discretion to appoint pro bono counsel. See

42 U.S.C. § 3613(b)(1). In considering a motion for appointment of counsel, a district court

considers three factors: “(1) the plaintiff's financial resources, (2) the efforts made by the

plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff's claim has merit.” See Bradshaw

Case 3:07-cv-05030-MMC Document 12 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 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

2

v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F. 2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth factors

appropriate in considering motion for appointment of counsel for purposes of Title VII

claim); Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1157 (D. Kan. 2001)

(holding factors applicable to Title VII claim also applicable to motion for appointment of

counsel for Fair Housing Act claim).

In light of the Court’s prior finding that plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma

pauperis herein, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing with respect to his lack of financial

resources. Plaintiff, however, has not identified any action he has taken to secure counsel,

nor has plaintiff shown that his claim has merit.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05030-MMC Document 12 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2