Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00026/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00026-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John E. Potter
Defendant
Katherine Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHERINE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-00026 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION RE ORDER

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel in this

employment discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Because plaintiff is not an indigent litigant who may lose her physical liberty if she loses the

litigation, there is no right to appointment of counsel in this case, see Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), nor are funds available to compensate appointed counsel. 

In employment actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, pro bono counsel may be appointed “[u]pon application by the complainant

and in such circumstances as the court may deem just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B). The

court must assess three factors under this section: “(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. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations

omitted).

In this district, if the court finds that the plaintiff meets the above-stated criteria, the

court may refer the plaintiff's case to the Federal Pro Bono Project, which will attempt to locate

a volunteer attorney to represent the plaintiff. The Federal Pro Bono Project will attempt to

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 26 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 2
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

secure representation only for indigent Title VII plaintiffs or indigent incarcerated plaintiffs

bringing civil rights actions. 

The Court is not convinced that plaintiff's claim has merit — the third requirement of

Bradshaw. As stated, plaintiff is not an indigent litigant who may lose her physical liberty if

she loses the litigation, so there is no right to appointment of counsel here. At this stage the

Court cannot tell if the case has even plausible merit. Plaintiff claims that she was assaulted

when she was shot with four rubber bands by another worker, that another worker shoved her

hand into a metal case and injured her finger, and that she was wrongfully terminated. As the

case develops and it were to become apparent that plaintiff’s claim has merit, the Court will

consider appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is advised that appointment of counsel is granted in

only a small fraction of these cases.

The court finds, therefore, that plaintiff’s case lacks sufficient merit at this point to

justify a search for volunteer counsel willing to accept an appointment. Accordingly, plaintiff's

request is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 26 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2