Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02535/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02535-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL V. LEVELS, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2535 LKK DAD PS

vs.

APPLE COMPUTERS, INC., ORDER

Defendant.

 /

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 

Plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleges claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Plaintiff

claims that he “was stereotyped, harangued with verbal abuse and racial slurs, racially profiled,

assaulted and harassed and discriminated against based on his race, color, sex and disability” by

defendant’s employees.

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

The court finds that the application form filed on November 14, 2006, is incomplete and undated. 

The application will be denied without prejudice, and plaintiff will be granted twenty days to file

a properly completed application on the form provided with this order. Plaintiff must answer all

questions on the form and must sign and date the completed form.

Case 2:06-cv-02535-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 02/23/07 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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 1

F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

The court’s records reveal that plaintiff previously filed an action against the same

defendant alleging the same claim. In Earl V. Levels, Sr. v. Apple Computer Inc. & Department 1

of Fair Housing and Employment, case No. CIV S-02-1569 FCD JFM PS, filed July 3, 2002,

plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court found that the complaint in

that case was vague and conclusory, did not contain a short and plain statement of claims, and

did not allege with particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that supported his claims. 

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and

second amended complaint were also dismissed with leave to amend. On March 11, 2003,

plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of the action without prejudice, and the case was closed on

that date. Several months later, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint and a request for

appointment of counsel. Both documents were disregarded because they were improperly filed

in a closed case. Plaintiff’s untimely appeal from the district court’s termination of the case at

plaintiff’s own request was dismissed on December 24, 2003.

Plaintiff is advised of the following provision applicable to a plaintiff who

dismisses an action and later commences another action on the same claim:

If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court

commences an action based upon or including the same claim

against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the

payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem

proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff

has complied with the order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d). If plaintiff proceeds with this action by filing a properly completed in

forma pauperis application, the court will determine whether it is appropriate to order plaintiff to

pay the $150.00 filing fee for the previous action and whether to stay this new action until

plaintiff has paid that amount.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02535-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 02/23/07 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

3

Plaintiff is also informed that the court finds the complaint in this new action

vague and conclusory. The pleading contains no information about the starting and ending dates

of plaintiff’s employment with defendant Apple Computer, Inc., the dates and details of the

alleged discriminatory events, and the dates and other details of plaintiff’s exhaustion of

administrative remedies. At the present time, plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a Title VII claim. 

With regard to his ADA claim, plaintiff has not identified his disabilities, has not described the

reasonable accommodation he requested or the details of when and how he made the request, and

has not set forth defendant’s response to his request. Plaintiff alleges facts that have no apparent

relevance to claims brought pursuant to Title VII or the ADA. The court is unable to determine,

however, whether plaintiff seeks relief under other federal statutes. At the present, plaintiff’s

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After the court resolves filing

fee issues, the complaint in this case will be dismissed with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has recently requested appointment of counsel. Three factors are relevant

to the determination of whether counsel should be appointed to represent a plaintiff in an

employment discrimination case such as this one: (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the

efforts already made by plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether plaintiff’s claims have merit. 

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

of counsel is not a matter of right. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982).

In this case, plaintiff has not yet filed a properly completed application to proceed

in forma pauperis. Accordingly, he has not made an adequate showing of indigency. The second

factor noted above has not been satisfied because plaintiff’s request does not demonstrate that he

has made any effort to secure counsel. As to the third factor, while the court has not prejudged

the matter, it is unconvinced at this stage of the proceedings that plaintiff’s claims have merit

such that counsel should be appointed. Plaintiff has offered no argument in this regard. For

these reasons, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02535-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 02/23/07 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 14, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis is

denied without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a form Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis;

3. Plaintiff shall submit, within twenty days from the date of this order, a properly

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided with this order; failure

to comply with this order or seek an extension of time to do so will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed without prejudice; and

4. Plaintiff’s February 20, 2007 request for appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: February 23, 2007.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.prose\levels2535.ifpden

Case 2:06-cv-02535-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 02/23/07 Page 4 of 4