Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03054/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARROW BOGGIANO,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-3054 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE

ART KAPOOR REALTY INC., et al., MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before this court is pro per plaintiff Boggiano’s second request to file a motion for

reconsideration of the court’s July 1, 2005 order dismissing her case. As previously

explained, for leave to be granted, Boggiano must either show a material difference in fact or

law from that which was previously presented to the court, the emergence of new material

facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure of the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L. R. 7-11(b). Boggiano’s papers do not present any

arguments that affect the applicability of res judicata in this matter, or the dismissals for failure

to serve certain defendants. Accordingly, the renewed motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

Boggiano also requests that this court appoint counsel to represent her. However, in

civil cases, other than employment discrimination cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§2000e, the district court may only appoint counsel to litigants proceeding in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), and only if their claims appear to have merit. Here,

because Boggiano is not proceeding in forma pauperis, the court cannot appoint counsel to

represent her. In any event, because the court has already dismissed Boggiano’s claims, they

cannot be said to have merit. Therefore, even if Boggiano were proceeding in forma pauperis
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

in this action, the request to appoint counsel would be denied on that basis as well. 

The second motion for reconsideration is DENIED. This order fully adjudicates the

matter listed at no. 51 on the clerk’s docket for this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge