Opinion ID: 439110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Precedent In The Courts of Appeals

Text: 56 We turn to precedent on this issue in the various courts of appeals. There are four circuits which have held that an impoverished civil rights plaintiff who seeks and is denied appointed counsel has a right to an interlocutory appeal. Two of these cases preceded decision in the Firestone case. Two followed Firestone. Arranged in reverse order of decision they are as follows: Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474 (3rd Cir.1981); Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir.1981); Hudak v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985, 99 S.Ct. 1799, 60 L.Ed.2d 247 (1979); Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir.1977). 57 Judge Reinhardt's decision for a Ninth Circuit panel in the Bradshaw case cited above provides an excellent discussion of the applicable and controlling law. Concerning the three Cohen issues of Finality, Separability and Effective Review, he has included the following paragraphs which I have chosen as summaries of each argument. 1. Finality 58 The first, and perhaps the simplest, requirement derives from the relation between trial and appellate courts. Section 1291 serves to preserve that relation as one of review, not supervision. Thus the decision of the district court on the particular point at issue should be final. This criterion is satisfied here in that the district court has clearly said its last word on the subject of appointment of counsel, in no way indicating that its order was tentative. Indeed, the appeal here is taken from the denial of a motion to reconsider the earlier ruling. The trial court has effectively, unequivocally, and, as we discuss below, erroneously rejected Miss Bradshaw's request for assistance. 2. Separability 59 The second criterion under Cohen requires that the court examine the relation between the substance of the order and the merits of the action itself. In Cohen the Court characterized the order as separable from, and collateral to the merits. The Court stated that the separability requirement would be satisfied where the order was too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated. 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1226 (emphasis added). The Court said the collateral order exception would not apply to decisions that are steps towards final judgment on the merits. One might well simply conclude from the above, as did the Fifth Circuit in Caston: Obviously, the refusal to appoint an attorney is collateral to the merits of the case. 556 F.2d at 1308. 3. Effective Review 60 The last criterion in assessing appealability under Cohen is whether the rights asserted can be adequately protected on appeal from the final judgment. We are unwilling to engage in two untenable assumptions we would be required to make in order to find that effective review is available after final judgment on the merits. The first is that civil rights plaintiffs are capable of prosecuting their own cases through trial; the second is that should they somehow succeed in doing so, they will have the determination and capability to perfect and conduct appeals properly and fully after they lose. Both assumptions overlook the congressional judgment to the contrary that led to the enactment of section 2000e-5(f)(1)(B). 61 Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1306, 1307, 1310 (9th Cir.1981). 62 The Bradshaw majority opinion from which I have quoted brief answers to the three Cohen tests, of course, had much more to say on each topic. The full debate between Judge Reinhardt and Judge Wallace is readily available. Judge Reinhardt's opinion is better reasoned, is directly applicable to our cases and should be followed. 63 The same may be said generally in comparing the four Courts of Appeals' opinions holding that denied motions to appoint in the instant type of cases are appealable, to the three opinions which follow which took a contrary point of view. See Appleby v. Meachum, 696 F.2d 145 (1st Cir.1983); Randle v. Victor Welding Supply Co., 664 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir.1981); and Cotner v. Mason, 657 F.2d 1390 (10th Cir.1981). 64 It may be significant that none of the three cases referred to immediately above was filed under Title VII. It is also significant that the four Circuit Courts of Appeals cited earlier have all allowed appeals based on Title VII.