Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01052/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01052-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332oc Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DR. RACQUEL S. BOVIER, c/o 

EPIPHANY ONEPOINTE 

TELETHERAPY & ASSOC., LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIDGEPOINT 

EDUCATION/ASHFORD 

UNIVERSITY, BRIDGEPOINT 

UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARD 

OF REGENTS, DR. CRAIG MAXWELL, 

DR. ANTHONY “TONY” FARRELL, 

DR. DENISE MAXWELL, MR. JOHN 

GOODISON, DR. IRIS LAFFERTY, DR. 

TAMECCA FITZPATRICK, DR. JUDY 

DONOVAN, DR. JACKIE KYGER, MS. 

HEATHER MASON, DR. ALAN 

BELCHER, MR. ARMONDO 

DOMINGUEZ & ASSOC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

[ECF No 19.]

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 20 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Appointment of Counsel Under the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e 5(f)(1): Declaration in Support of Request.” 

Dkt No. 19. The Court will construe this request as a motion to appoint counsel. 

Plaintiff states that she is requesting counsel because (1) her claim is meritorious; (2) she 

has made a “reasonably diligent effort to obtain counsel”; and (3) she is unable to find an 

attorney willing to represent her on terms she can afford. Dkt. No. 19 at 1. 

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Although this statute authorizes district courts to appoint counsel “in such circumstances 

as the court may deem just,” the courts are “not obligated to appoint counsel in every 

employment discrimination case.” Johnson v. U.S. Department of Treasury, 939 F.2d 

820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). This determination is “left to the sound discretion of the district 

court.” Id. “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. 

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court evaluates the 

plaintiff’s financial resources, plaintiff’s efforts to obtain counsel, and the merits of the 

plaintiff’s claims. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. Of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th 

Cir. 1981). 

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 

No. 3. Subsequently, plaintiff paid the filing fee of $400. Plaintiff appears to continue to 

have at least some financial resources. See Dkt No. 19 at 6 (listing property).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s financial resources weigh against the appointment of counsel. 

Further, with regard to plaintiff’s efforts to obtain counsel, the Court finds that plaintiff’s 

efforts are insufficient. Plaintiff has spoken to only three attorneys. This is insufficient

and weighs against appointment of counsel. See Williams v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 

2014 WL 7404604, at *3 (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) (reasoning plaintiffs’ attempts to 

obtain counsel were insufficient where the plaintiff contacted seven attorneys); see also 

Turner v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 6571413, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 13, 2010) (same). The 

merits of Bovier’s case are not yet clear. Cf. Howard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2015 WL 

1622981, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) (“While Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 20 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

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

merits is hard to estimate at this stage, if he is likely to succeed, that suggests . . . that he 

could probably find a private attorney to take the case for him.”).

Finally, the documents filed in this case indicate that Plaintiff is able to adequately 

articulate and pursue her claims. For example, Plaintiff has submitted numerous 

pleadings and motions without the assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Dkt No. 1, 2, 5, 10, 

14. Further, the claims presented are not overly complex. As noted above, the 

appointment of counsel in employment discrimination cases is discretionary and there is 

no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA Document 20 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3