Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06036/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06036-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ARTHUR L BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LURITA ALEXIS DOAN,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-06036 EDL

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On August 19, 2008, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting appointment of counsel. Because this

is an employment discrimination matter and Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court

presumes that Plaintiff is requesting counsel pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

which independently provides for appointment of counsel under certain circumstances. See 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (“Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the

court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the

commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs or security.”). When determining

whether to appoint counsel under section 2000e-5(f)(1), a court is required to assess three factors:

(1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the plaintiff’s efforts to secure counsel; and (3) the

meritoriousness of plaintiff’s claim. Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301,

1318 (9th Cir. 1981). 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-06036-EDL Document 27 Filed 08/21/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Here, Plaintiff has not submitted any specific information about his financial resources to

establish the need for appointment of counsel. Instead, he states only that he is unable to afford to

hire counsel. Nor has Plaintiff explained his efforts to secure counsel. Finally, at this early stage of

the litigation, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the meritoriousness of his claims. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s request is denied without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06036-EDL Document 27 Filed 08/21/08 Page 2 of 2