Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John E. Potter
Defendant
Surinder Singh Saini
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

SURINDER SINGH SAINI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0149 FCD DAD PS

v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND MATERIALS

Defendant. FOR SERVICE, AND REQUIRING SERVICE

BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

 /

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21). Plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleges claims of employment discrimination.

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

The undersigned finds that plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by the statute. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff has also requested appointment of counsel. Three factors are relevant to

the determination of whether counsel should be appointed to represent a plaintiff in an

employment discrimination case: (1) the plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts already

made by the plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether plaintiff’s claims have merit. Bradshaw

v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). Appointment of counsel

is not a matter of right. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 2:08-cv-00149-FCD-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/25/08 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

2

Here, plaintiff has made a showing of indigency, thereby satisfying the first factor. 

The second factor has not been satisfied because plaintiff’s motion does not reveal any effort to

secure counsel. As to the third factor, while the court has not prejudged the case, plaintiff has not

shown that his claims have merit such that counsel should be appointed. For these reasons,

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 22, 2008 application to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted.

2. Plaintiff’s January 22, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to send plaintiff (1) an

instruction sheet for service of process by the United States Marshal, (2) a USM-285 form and a

summons, and (3) one endorsed copy of plaintiff’s complaint filed January 22, 2008.

4. Plaintiff shall follow the instructions provided by the Clerk of the Court and

shall submit the properly completed materials for service, along with a copy of this order, to the

United States Marshal within thirty (30) days after this order is served.

5. Within ten (10) days after plaintiff submits the materials for service and a copy

of this order to the United States Marshal, plaintiff shall file a statement with the court advising

the court of the date on which he submitted the documents to the United States Marshal.

6. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the necessary materials from plaintiff,

the United States Marshal is directed to serve process on defendant John E. Potter, sued in his

official capacity as Postmaster General.

DATED: January 24, 2008.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\saini0149.ifp.serve

Case 2:08-cv-00149-FCD-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2