Randolph v. FEDEX-Federal Express Corporation

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 06/13/12 ORDERING that plaintiff's 45 Motion for Reconsideration to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SHAWN L. RANDOLPH,

10

Plaintiff,
vs.

11
12

No. CIV S-11-0028 GEB GGH PS
FEDEX - FEDERAL EXPRESS
CORPORATION,

13
Defendant.
14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff has filed a second request for appointment of counsel. Requests for

16

appointment of counsel in Title VII cases are governed by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), which

17

provides in pertinent part:

18
19

Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may
deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may
authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs, or
security.

20
21

In assessing whether to appoint counsel pursuant to this statute, the court must

22

consider the following criteria set forth in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662

23

F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981): (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) plaintiff’s efforts to date to

24

secure counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 1318. Appointment

25

of counsel is not a matter of right and the district court’s discretion is broad in determining

26

whether counsel should be appointed. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F. 2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.
1

1

1982).

2

In the previous order addressing plaintiff’s first request for appointment of

3

counsel, the undersigned noted that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was in her favor in regard

4

to the first factor. The court also noted that plaintiff had not provided information concerning

5

her efforts to seek counsel and that she was unable to obtain counsel on her own. The court

6

further found that on the record before it, there was no indication of a likelihood of success on

7

the merits.

8

Plaintiff’s most recent request for appointment of counsel reflects her efforts to

9

obtain counsel and her inability to do so. Her request includes at least three letters from attorneys

10

unwilling to take her case, as well as her own tabulation of additional attorneys contacted without

11

success. Although the court appreciates plaintiff’s efforts, which work in her favor as to the

12

second Bradshaw factor, the fact remains that the court is unable to find a likelihood of success

13

on the merits based on the record before it, which the court has once again reviewed.

14

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed

15

May 1, 2012, (dkt. # 45), is denied.

16

DATED: June 13, 2012

17

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
GGH:076:Randolph0028.appt2.wpd

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2