* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar No. 06-30743

MARK BLACKMAN, Pl aint iff- Appellant,

versus GLOBAL INDUSTRIES OFFSHORE, L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana (6:05-cv-01160-RFD-MEM) Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The district court denied Mark Blackman’s request for appointment of counsel for his Title VII employment discrimination suit. Blackman appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Blackman, a pro se litigant, filed suit against Global Industries Offshore (“Global”) in 2005 alleging wrongful term

inat io n based on numerou s state and f ederal grounds, among them, sexual2

harassment, race and age discriminat io n. Aft er an invest igation, the Unit ed States Equal Em ployment Opportunity Com

missio n (“EEOC”) concluded that Blackman, who was a lift boat employee, was discharged when Global term inat ed all of it s lift boat employees because it sold it s lift boat divisio n. On Septem

ber 9, 2005, Blackman filed a Motion fo r Appointment of Counsel. Although he did not specify the statutory provision under which he was applying, the Magistrate Judge int erpreted his mo tion as being filed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), which provides fo r appoint ment of counsel in Ti tle VII suits “in such circumstances as the court may deem just.” On June 21, 2006, the district court denied Blackman’s motion, holding th at he was not entitled to appointment of counsel under eit her § 2000e-5(f)(1) or 28 U.SC. § 1915(e)(1) (providing fo r appoint ment of counsel in proceedings in fo rma pauperis). Blackman appeals the district court’s ruling. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review fo r abuse of discretion th e refusal to appoint counsel for a Title VII plaintiff. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). The district court should consider “(1) the merit s of

the plaint iff's claims of discriminat io n; (2) the effo rts taken by the plaint iff to obtain counsel; and (3) the plaintiff's financial ability to retain counsel.” Id

. Gonzalez v. Carlin , 907 F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 55 6 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Ci r. 1977)). No one factor i s conclusive. Id

. It is well-established th at “pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards th an fo rmal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Miller v. Stanmore , 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. Unit A Feb. 1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may appoint an attorney to represent a litigant in federal court. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). In evaluating whether the appoint ment of counsel is proper, the district court considers the ty pe and com

plexit y of the case,3

the lit igant’s abilit y to invest igate and present the case, and the level of skill required to present the evide nce. See id . at 213. We review the denial of appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) for abuse of discretion. See Jackson , 811 F.2d at 261. III. DISCUSSION The district court’s conclusion th at Blackman failed the “merit s” prong of the § 2000e-5(f)(1) test fo r appoint ment of counsel in a Ti tle VII case was not an abuse of discretion. We find appellant’s arguments th at the EEOC invest igation file is inco mplet e and th at it did not conduct a full invest igation to be without merit in regard to his appointment of counsel claim. Alt hough Global argues th a t Blackman failed to raise his § 1915(e)(1) in pauperis claim belo w, we nevertheless consider the claim because of the “less stringent standards” governing pro se appeals, because Blackman, in his Septem b er 9, 2005 letter to the court, did not specify which statutory provision he was relying on for his request, and because the district court considered the claim. In Romero v. Becken , 256 F.3d 349, 354 (5th Cir. 2001), this court upheld the denial of a § 1915(e)(1) in pauperis claim because it agreed, aft er a review of the record, wit h the district court’s conclusion th at the plaint iff had the present “abilit y to investigate and present the case.” Similarly, here, the district court fo und th at Blackman is “capable of articulating his claims and adequatel y representing his int erests in this case.” Aft er reviewing the record, we likewise agree wit h the district court’s assessment and conclude th at the district court did not abuse it s discretion in denying Blackman’s § 1915(e)(1) in pauperis claim. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.4

AFFIRMED.