Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02297/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02297-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTI ANN NEWSOME,

Plaintiff, NO. CIV.S-06-2297 DAD

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

This matter came before the court on December 22, 2006, for

hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, did not appear at the hearing. Deputy

Attorney General Susan Slager appeared on behalf of defendant

California Department of Social Services. 

As indicated at the hearing, plaintiff has failed to file

any opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. Rather, at that

time the only document filed by plaintiff with the court since the

Case 2:06-cv-02297-DAD Document 17 Filed 01/19/07 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

2

filing of the complaint was a letter filed on December 6, 2006. In

that letter plaintiff indicated that she was "at the point of this

case that I can no longer represent myself" and sought the court's

assistance.

The court has construed plaintiff's letter as a request for

appointment of counsel. Three factors are relevant to the

determination of whether counsel should be appointed to represent a

plaintiff in an employment discrimination case such as this one: (1)

plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts already made by

plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether plaintiff's claim has

merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301,

1318 (9th Cir. 1981). Appointment of counsel is not a matter of

right. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Plaintiff paid the filing fee for this action and did not

file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, she

has not made an adequate showing of indigency. The second factor

noted above has arguably been satisfied in that the attachments to

plaintiff's letter refer to her unsuccessful efforts to secure

counsel. As to the third factor, while the court has not prejudged

the matter, it is unconvinced at this stage of the proceedings that

plaintiff’s claim has merit such that counsel should be appointed. 

Plaintiff also has offered no argument in this regard. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied.

On January 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a first amended

complaint continuing to allege, as she did in her original complaint,

that defendant California Department of Social Services violated her

Case 2:06-cv-02297-DAD Document 17 Filed 01/19/07 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

1/ If plaintiff files opposition to the motion to dismiss and

the court determines that oral argument would be helpful in

resolving the motion, the matter will be set for oral argument

and the parties will be notified.

3

rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to

make reasonable work place accommodation to plaintiff in light of her

disability. In the unopposed motion to dismiss, defendant California

Department of Social Services argued that it enjoyed absolute

immunity with respect to plaintiff's ADA claim under the Eleventh

Amendment. Defendant's argument is not addressed in, or impacted by,

plaintiff's first amended complaint. 

Accordingly, plaintiff will be ordered to file her written

opposition, if any, to defendant's motion to dismiss within ten days

of the date of this order. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to 1/

file such opposition will result in dismissal of the action.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is

denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s written opposition to defendant's motion to

dismiss, if any, shall be filed and served on or before January 29,

2007. 

DATED: January 18, 2007.

Ddad1/orders.consent/newsome2297.122206.oah

Case 2:06-cv-02297-DAD Document 17 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 3