Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02283/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02283-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CARMELA MENDOZA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2283 DFL JFM PS 

vs.

PAUL SMITH,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel. In the complaint filed November

10, 2005, plaintiff alleges defendant discriminated against her by denying her scheduled annual

leave, treating her disparately and in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the

Union’s Local Memorandum of Understanding. 

The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that she was discriminated against in

employment based on gender and/or race in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B).

Any successful application for appointment of counsel must comply with criteria

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

appointing counsel for plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bradshaw requires the court to

consider (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts already made by plaintiff to secure

Case 2:05-cv-02283-DFL -JFM Document 10 Filed 06/14/06 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

 While plaintiff states her earnings every month is just enough for her bills and her 1

husband has a seasonal job (farm), plaintiff did not complete a request to proceed in forma

pauperis or provide a certified or verified statement of income and expenses for the court to

consider.

2

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

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

Plaintiff paid the $250.00 filing fee and has presented no evidence of her financial

condition, other than to state she cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Plaintiff has not addressed 1

either of the last two factors. Moreover, at this early stage of the proceeding, it is unlikely the

court could determine plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.

The Clerk of the Court will be directed to send plaintiff the Bradshaw packet

which explains the criteria required to seek appointment of counsel in Title VII cases in this

district. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice to its

renewal upon a proper showing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the Bradshaw

packet. 

DATED: June 14, 2006. 

/001; mend2283.den

Case 2:05-cv-02283-DFL -JFM Document 10 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2