Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02888/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02888-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Thomas Lee Russell, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 04-2888 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

State of Arizona, Arizona )

Department of Revenue, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Plaintiff Thomas Lee Russell brought this Title VII action

against Defendant the State of Arizona, Arizona Department of

Revenue ("ADOR") based upon allegations of employment

discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Compl. (doc. # 1). 

On February 28, 2005, the Court issued an order setting a Rule 16

scheduling conference for March 28, 2005, at which Plaintiff failed

to appear. Order (doc. # 6); Minute Entry (doc. # 8). 

Subsequently, Plaintiff apparently failed to make initial

disclosures required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure by the April 4, 2005 deadline set by the Court's

scheduling order (doc. # 10), and also failed to appear for two

Case 2:04-cv-02888-RCB Document 16 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 This motion appears on the docket as Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss (doc. # 14).

- 2 -

properly noticed depositions. See Mot. (doc. # 14); Order (doc. #

10); Notice of Dep. (doc. # 12); Notice of Dep. (doc. # 13). 

Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions (doc. # 14)

pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

specifically for dismissal of the case without prejudice due to

Plaintiff's noncompliance in discovery.1 Plaintiff has not filed a

response in opposition to this motion, and the time for response

has now passed. Instead, on September 16, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

motion (doc. # 15) asking the Court to appoint counsel to represent

him in this action.

I. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL

Although Plaintiff does not cite the statute under which he

applies for appointment of counsel, the Court will analyze his

request under the standard relevant to Title VII cases.

Title VII authorizes appointment of counsel “in such

circumstances as the court may deem just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1). Courts generally use three factors, and many times a

fourth, to determine whether appointment of counsel is appropriate: 

(1) the plaintiff’s financial ability to pay for an attorney; (2)

efforts made by the plaintiff to retain counsel; (3) merits of the

plaintiff’s claim; and (4) the plaintiff’s capacity to present the

case. See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d

1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981); Castner v. Colo. Springs Cablevision,

979 F.2d 1417, 1421 (10th Cir. 1992). While Plaintiff has avowed

his lack of capacity to present his case, see Mot. (doc. # 15) at

Case 2:04-cv-02888-RCB Document 16 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

1, he presents no evidence to support the other three factors. The

Court therefore denies his motion for court-appointed counsel.

II. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that if a party fails to appear before the officer taking his

deposition after proper notice has been served, "the court in which

the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to

the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action

authorized under subparagraph. . .(C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this

rule." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). Similar sanctions may be imposed if

a party, without substantial justification, fails to make

disclosures required by Rule 26(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). In

relevant part, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) authorizes the court to enter an

order "dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). The burden of establishing a

substantial justification is on the party being sanctioned. See

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 1994).

Russell has allowed the time for response to lapse without

filing a response in opposition to Defendant's motion. Although

the Court recognizes that "firm application of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure" is necessary to "ensure that federal officials are

not harassed by frivolous lawsuits," Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S.

478, 508 (1978), the Court is reluctant to decide on Defendant's

request for dismissal of Russell's pro se complaint without his

having been heard on this issue. It appears to the Court that

Russell may have failed to respond to Defendant's motion in the

mistaken belief that his present motion for court-appointed counsel

would excuse him from doing so. Of course, this is not the case. 

Case 2:04-cv-02888-RCB Document 16 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will

additionally construe his present motion (doc. # 15) as a motion

seeking an extension of time within which to file a response in

opposition to Defendant's motion (doc. # 14). Accordingly, the

Court finds that justice is best served by extending the time for

Russell to respond to Defendant's motion (doc. # 14) by fifteen

(15) days from the date of entry of this order. After that time,

the Court will rule on Defendant's motion whether or not any

response has been filed by Plaintiff. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel

(doc. # 15) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to

file a response in opposition to Defendant's motion for

sanctions (doc. # 14) shall be extended to fifteen (15) days

from the date of entry of this order.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2005.

Copies to counsel of record and Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:04-cv-02888-RCB Document 16 Filed 12/07/05 Page 4 of 4