Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00277/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00277-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gonzalo Mata,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Pima County, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 04-CV-277-TUC-FRZ

 ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Gonzalo Mata’s July 27, 2005 “Motion to

Request a Lawyer to Represent Me in this Case” and August 29, 2005 “Motion to Request

a Lawyer to Represent and Defend Me in this Case.” In those motions, he alleges that he has

been unable to obtain an attorney to represent him despite his good faith efforts to find one

and that he is poor and does not have enough money to hire an attorney.

The Court has the discretion to request an attorney to represent an individual who is

unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1);

Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Mata has not adequately demonstrated that his unable to afford counsel. In the

motions, he simply states that he is poor and does not have enough money to hire an attorney.

But Mata paid the filing fee and did not seek to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, Mata

is employed.

Case 4:04-cv-00277-FRZ Document 40 Filed 11/08/05 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

27

28

- 2 -

 Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will deny Mata’s requests for appointed

counsel at this time. Mata may, however, file a subsequent request for appointment of

counsel that demonstrates his financial inability to pay, his efforts to obtain counsel, the

likelihood of his success on the merits, and his inability to articulate his claims in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986); Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1318.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s July 27, 2005 “Motion to Request a Lawyer to

Represent Me in this Case” (U.S.D.C. document #30) is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s August 29, 2005 “Motion to Request

a Lawyer to Represent and Defend Me in this Case” (U.S.D.C. document #34) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2005.

Case 4:04-cv-00277-FRZ Document 40 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 2