Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01444/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

15cv1444-BTM-DHB

1

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 

DAVID HALLER, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND E. MABUS, Secretary of 

the Navy

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 15-CV-1444-BTM-DHB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

On July 1, 2015, pro se Plaintiff, David Haller filed a Complaint

against Defendant, Raymond E. Mabus, Secretary of the Navy under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq.,

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Plaintiff

alleges that he was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation while 

employed by the United States Marine Corps. Defendant has not made an 

appearance in this matter.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-01444-BTM-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 3
15cv1444-BTM-DHB

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

On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of 

Counsel using the form under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (“Form”). There is 

no right to counsel in civil cases and district courts may appoint counsel 

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 

1017 (9th Cir. 1991). In determining whether to appoint counsel under § 

2000e-5(f)(1), a district court should consider the following three factors: 

(1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) efforts made to secure counsel on 

his or her own; and (3) the claim’s merit. See Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of 

Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Ultimately, the determination 

of whether to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the district 

court. Id.

Upon reviewing the Form, the Court finds that though Plaintiff is 

currently unemployed, his financial situation does not appear to warrant 

appointment of pro bono counsel. Additionally, though Plaintiff claims to 

have contacted a number of attorneys who either failed to return his call or 

refused to take his case due to its complexity, Plaintiff has not supplied a 

log of those efforts (Doc. 3, at 4). Thus, the Court cannot determine 

whether Plaintiff has made a diligent effort to obtain counsel. Plaintiff’s 

filings also indicate that he appears capable of litigating this matter pro se. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-01444-BTM-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 3
15cv1444-BTM-DHB

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

27

28

Additionally, based on the facts in the Complaint, the Court cannot 

at this time say that there is any likelihood of success on the merits. 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint 

counsel without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-01444-BTM-DHB Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 3