Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01217/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01217-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Myra M. Samiere
Plaintiff
San Francisco Unified School District
Defendant

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRA M. SAMIERE,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-1217 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Pro se plaintiff Myra M. Samiere filed this action on March 1, 2007, against

defendant San Francisco Unified School District (“SFUSD”), alleging employment

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and possibly also asserting violations of Title I of the

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq. Also on March 1,

2007, following the filing of the complaint, the court set an initial case management

conference for June 28, 2007.

On June 19, 2007, SFUSD filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that

the action is time-barred because plaintiff filed the complaint more than 90 days after the

EEOC issued the right-to-sue notice. SFUSD noticed the motion for hearing on July 25,

2007.

Case 4:07-cv-01217-PJH Document 19 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The Federal Pro Bono Project was established by the San Francisco Bar Association

for the purpose of assisting indigent Title VII plaintiffs or indigent incarcerated civil rights

plaintiffs to secure legal representation. 

2

On June 21, 2007, plaintiff filed what a appears to be an opposition to the motion for

judgment on the pleadings and a request to continue the hearing on the motion. She also

filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a request to continue the initial case

management conference. 

1. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel to represent her in this action. Because

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

there is no right to counsel in this case, see Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S.

18, 25 (1981). More pertinent to the present action, there is no constitutional right to

appointed counsel for employment discrimination claims, Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982), nor are funds available in this court (or any federal court) to

compensate counsel appointed in civil cases. 

The 1964 Civil Rights Act provides for appointment of counsel in employment

discrimination cases “in such circumstances as the court may deem just.” Bradshaw v.

Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981); see 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000e-5(f)(1). In this district, if the court finds that the plaintiff meets certain criteria, the

court may refer the case to the Federal Pro Bono Project,1

 which will attempt to locate a

volunteer attorney to represent the plaintiff. 

Under Bradshaw, the court is required to assess three factors: 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, 662 F.2d at 1318. Here, the court has granted

plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, plaintiff meets the first factor. 

However, plaintiff has not satisfied the second or third factors. 

With regard to the second factor – the efforts made to secure counsel – plaintiff does

not identify, by name, a single attorney that she contacted in an attempt to secure

Case 4:07-cv-01217-PJH Document 19 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 The court finds further that plaintiff does not meet the “exceptional circumstances”

required for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

representation. She simply asserts that she has “tried searching,” but has “had no luck

with the Lawyers Referal of S.F., resources in the booklet provided by the U.S. District

Court . . . , online and phone research.” This showing is not sufficient to establish that

plaintiff has made a serious effort to obtain counsel on her own. 

With regard to the third factor – whether the complaint has merit – plaintiff has made

no showing whatsoever. In Bradshaw, the Ninth Circuit noted that if the EEOC "has found

'reasonable cause,' . . . the claim should ordinarily be deemed meritorious." Id. at 1309. 

Here, however, the EEOC issued the right-to-sue notice because it “determined that it will

not be able to investigate and conciliate [the] charge within 180 days of the date the

Commission assumed jurisdiction over the charge,” and because plaintiff specifically

requested the EEOC to issue the notice. 

Thus, there is no indication that the EEOC found discrimination or "reasonable

cause," and no basis upon which the court can find that plaintiff's claim of discrimination is

meritorious. Further, plaintiff presented no argument in her request for appointment of

counsel which could be viewed as supporting her claim of discrimination by the SFUSD. 

Accordingly, the court finds that at this stage of the litigation, the request for appointment of

counsel must be DENIED.2

2. Request for Continuance of Initial Case Management Conference and Date 

for Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Plaintiff seeks a continuance of the date of the initial case management conference

“until I receive a court appointed/pro-bono attorney.” Because plaintiff does not meet the

standard for appointment of counsel, as explained above, the request to continue the case

management conference cannot be granted for the reason provided by plaintiff. Instead, 

in view of the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court hereby VACATES

the case management conference. The parties will be advised of the new date, if any, in

Case 4:07-cv-01217-PJH Document 19 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

the order ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

3. Request for Continuance of the Hearing on the Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings

To the extent that plaintiff intended to request a continuance of the motion hearing

date, that request is also DENIED, because plaintiff has not stated any good cause for the

request. 

4. Failure to File Certificate of Service

None of plaintiff’s three June 21, 2007, filings – the request for appointment of

counsel, the request for a continuance of the initial case management conference, or the

response to SFUSD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings – was accompanied by a

certificate of service on counsel for SFUSD, as required by Civil Local Rule 5-6. The court

cautions plaintiff that, in the future, it will not consider any pleading or other paper that is

filed without an attached certificate of service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01217-PJH Document 19 Filed 06/25/07 Page 4 of 4