Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01154/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01154-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 - 07cv1154

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUISA C. WILDEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1154 JM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendant.

On August 28, 2007 the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 6). Plaintiff now renews

her request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist her in

prosecuting this civil action. The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil

case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept.

of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, this court has the discretion to appoint counsel

in a Title VII action “in such circumstances as the court may deem just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(b).

In making this determination, the court considers the following three factors when deciding whether

to appoint counsel: “(1) the plaintiff's financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to

secure counsel; and (3) whether the plaintiff's claim has merit.” Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San

Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir.1981); Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dept., 27 F.3d 415, 417 (9th Cir.

1994). 

Here, the court has already found that plaintiff possess little financial resources and, from the

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 65 Filed 09/14/09 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 - 07cv1154

record submitted by Plaintiff, it appears as though her financial security and physical health has

declined since the filing of this action. Plaintiff has also submitted additional documentation to show

that she sought counsel to assists her in prosecuting this action from four different attorneys, or

consumer advocate organizations, during 2006 and 2007. There is no evidence that Plaintiff sought

counsel in either 2008 or 2009. With respect to an analysis of the merits, the court notes that such an

analysis at the pleading stage presents numerous challenges because there is no record to review, only

allegations made by a pro se plaintiff untrained in the law. With respect to the merits of Plaintiff’s

claims, the court notes that Plaintiff appears to have a sufficient grasp of her case, the legal issues

involved, and is able to adequately articulate the basis of her complaint. However, a review of this

court’s orders on the motions to dismiss, Docket Nos. 22, 41, reveals that Plaintiff has weak claims.

Under these circumstances, the Court denies plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of counsel.

In sum, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 65 Filed 09/14/09 Page 2 of 2