Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00028/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00028-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN L. RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

No. CIV S-11-0028 GEB GGH PS

FEDEX - FEDERAL EXPRESS

CORPORATION,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a second request for appointment of counsel. Requests for

appointment of counsel in Title VII cases are governed by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), which

provides in pertinent part:

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. 

In assessing whether to appoint counsel pursuant to this statute, the court must

consider the following criteria set forth in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662

F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981): (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) plaintiff’s efforts to date to 

secure counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 1318. Appointment

of counsel is not a matter of right and the district court’s discretion is broad in determining

whether counsel should be appointed. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F. 2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.

1

Case 2:11-cv-00028-GEB-DAD Document 46 Filed 06/14/12 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

1982).

In the previous order addressing plaintiff’s first request for appointment of

counsel, the undersigned noted that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was in her favor in regard

to the first factor. The court also noted that plaintiff had not provided information concerning

her efforts to seek counsel and that she was unable to obtain counsel on her own. The court

further found that on the record before it, there was no indication of a likelihood of success on

the merits. 

Plaintiff’s most recent request for appointment of counsel reflects her efforts to

obtain counsel and her inability to do so. Her request includes at least three letters from attorneys

unwilling to take her case, as well as her own tabulation of additional attorneys contacted without

success. Although the court appreciates plaintiff’s efforts, which work in her favor as to the

second Bradshaw factor, the fact remains that the court is unable to find a likelihood of success

on the merits based on the record before it, which the court has once again reviewed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed

May 1, 2012, (dkt. # 45), is denied.

DATED: June 13, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076:Randolph0028.appt2.wpd

2

Case 2:11-cv-00028-GEB-DAD Document 46 Filed 06/14/12 Page 2 of 2