Opinion ID: 410332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the pro se problem

Text: 23 We are aware from the record that Camps sought an appointment of counsel by the District Court at an early stage in the proceedings. 49 The court had already granted Camps leave to file his suit in forma pauperis 50 but, declaring that [t]he plaintiff in a forma pauperis civil suit, ... does not have an absolute statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed, 51 refused to appoint a lawyer for Camps. 52 In reaching that decision, the court stated that Camps had not represented ... that he ha[d] sought and been unable to find counsel to prosecute this case on a contingency fee basis, 53 or tried to obtain assistance from one of the legal aid clinics in the area. 54 The court further opined that a Title VII employment discrimination case such as this is unlikely to be the exceptional case that calls for the appointment of counsel under the in forma pauperis statute. 55 Though Camps has not appealed the ruling on appointment of counsel, we feel obliged to utilize the opportunity to add a comment on that action, for such value as it may have for the proceedings on remand. 24 In this vein, we point out that many of the difficulties that Camps seems to have experienced in this litigation may have arisen from his lack of legal representation. He told us during oral argument that he had made exhaustive but unfruitful efforts to find a lawyer to serve him. 56 While the District Court has considerable discretion in determining whether to assign a lawyer as an application of the in forma pauperis provision--and we do not suggest that it has abused its discretion in this case--we make these observations to pass along to the court revealing information we have acquired in the course of this appeal. 25 More importantly, we point out that another avenue is open to Camps in his effort to secure a court-appointed attorney. Whether or not a particular Title VII employment discrimination action is the exceptional case that calls for the appointment of counsel 57 under the in forma pauperis legislation, Title VII specifically authorizes district courts to assign counsel for complainants in suits brought thereunder. 58 So, whatever the fate of such cases with respect to the in forma pauperis statute, the District Court should not neglect a highly remedial provision of Title VII itself in considering whether to appoint a lawyer to represent Camps. 26 For the reasons stated, we reverse the District Court's dismissal of Camps' action against C & P and CWA 59 and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 27 So ordered. 28