Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00949/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00949-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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 - 08cv949 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BURK N. ASHFORD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv949 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

GOEPPINGER-CURRAN DEVELOPMENT

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the “Request for Appointment of Counsel under the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e 5(f)(1)” (Doc. # 14). 

On May 29, 2008, Plaintiff Burk N. Ashford initiated this action by filing the Complaint (Doc.

# 1). The Complaint alleges claims for “real estate contract default.” Complaint, p. 1. On October

2, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Request for Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff attests that he is selfemployed and earns “almost nothing” some months. Plaintiff attests that he has been unable to secure

the assistance of counsel. Plaintiff attests that his has $367 in cash, but no other property, and lists

$1,500 in monthly rental payments and over $40,000.00 in debts. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: “Upon application by the complainant and

in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such

complainant and may authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs,

or security.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(5)(f)(1)(B). “[W]hile unquestionably possessing authority to appoint

counsel, a district court is certainly not obligated to appoint counsel in every employment

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WQH-RBB Document 15 Filed 11/13/08 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 - 08cv949 WQH (RBB)

discrimination case. Rather, the determination is left to the sound discretion of the district court.”

Johnson v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 825 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, and concludes that the Complaint does not allege

employment discrimination or any other claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The

Court also cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is sufficient to warrant

counsel at this time. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel under 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-(5)(f)(1). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the “Request for Appointment of Counsel under the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e 5(f)(1)” (Doc. # 14) is DENIED. 

DATED: November 13, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WQH-RBB Document 15 Filed 11/13/08 Page 2 of 2