01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARIO ATKINS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C06-883 JCC

ORDER DIRECTING 

REFERRAL TO SCREENING PANEL

FOR POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF

PRO BONO COUNSEL

On June 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in this Court pursuant to Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he was the victim of racial

discrimination, that he was harassed, and that he was constructively discharged as a result. 

Dkt. No. 3. The plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which was referred to

the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 8. The Court, having considered plaintiff’s

motion and the available court record, directs that this matter be referred to the screening

panel of the pro bono counsel for possible appointment of counsel to represent plaintiff. 

Although this Court possesses the authority to appoint counsel in an Title VII

employment discrimination suit, as a general proposition, a plaintiff has no absolute right to

such an appointment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(5)(f)(1)(B); Ivey v. Board of Regents of the

University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted). Rather,

Case 2:06-cv-00883-JCC Document 10 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -2

the determination is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of

Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824-25 (9th Cir. 1991). Three factors are relevant to the Court's

determination of whether to appoint counsel: (1) the plaintiff's financial resources; (2) the

efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his or her own; and (3) the merits of the

plaintiff's claim. Id. (citing Ivey, 673 F.2d at 269). 

Plaintiff satisfies the financial requisite for appointment of counsel. A movant’s

ability to afford counsel is measured by a more lenient standard than that required to qualify

for in forma pauperis status. See Ivey, 673 F.2d at 269. Here, plaintiff has already been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. 

Additionally, plaintiff appears to have attempted to retain counsel. Plaintiff is

required to perform a reasonably diligent effort under the circumstances to obtain counsel. 

Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981); Ivey, 673

F.2d at 269. Here, plaintiff’s application indicates that he has sought assistance from

approximately nine lawyers. Dkt. No. 7. 

On the third issue, it is difficult to assess the merits of the case at this stage. While

not dispositive, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) evaluation of a

Title VII claim are considered probative of the merits for purposes of appointment of counsel. 

Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1309, 1319-20 (indicating that EEOC determinations that a case has

merit ordinarily require no further inquiry for purposes of appointment of counsel); see also

Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir.1977) (finding EEOC

investigations highly probative of a case’s merits for purposes of appointing counsel). Here,

the EEOC investigated plaintiff’s claim and according to plaintiff, issued a right to sue letter. 

Dkt. No 7. 

Accordingly, pursuant to the Western District of Washington General Order re:

Representation of pro se Litigants in Civil Rights Cases, the Clerk of the Court is directed to

refer the application, the pleadings filed to date, and this Order to the Screening Committee

Case 2:06-cv-00883-JCC Document 10 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -3

for possible appointment of counsel. The Screening Committee is requested to make a

recommendation regarding appointment of counsel to the undersigned Magistrate Judge and

to the Honorable John C. Coughenour at its earliest possible convenience. 

The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendant, and to

the Honorable John C. Coughenour.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2007.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00883-JCC Document 10 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 3