Robinson v. San Joaquin County et al

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/9/14 ORDERING that the plaintiff complete and file an application to proceed IFP and a motion for appointment of counsel within 7 days. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff an IFP form and this court's General Order number 188. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANTHONY W. ROBINSON,

10
11
12
13

No. 2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN,
Defendant.

14
15

This court has determined that counsel for plaintiff may be warranted in this case. Any

16

successful application for appointment of counsel must comply with criteria set forth in Bradshaw

17

v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Before appointing counsel to

18

plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bradshaw requires the court to consider (1) plaintiff’s

19

financial resources, (2) the efforts already made by plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s

20

likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 1318. Appointment of counsel is not a matter of right.

21

See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F. 2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982).

22

This court’s General Order number 188 sets forth the specific requirements for

23

appointment in this district under Bradshaw. First, plaintiff must complete an in forma pauperis

24

application. “Poverty generally means that the plaintiff has only enough money to eat and meet

25

other basic needs.” General Order No. 188, filed January 14, 1986, Ex. A at 3. Second, plaintiff

26

must file a motion for appointment of counsel, along with a declaration attesting to his previous

27

efforts to obtain counsel. “Reasonable efforts mean that the plaintiff tried the appropriate legal

28

aid offices and also at least two lawyers without success.” Id. The General Order and its exhibit
1

1

detail how the motion must be made. After plaintiff submits an in forma pauperis application,

2

and motion and declaration concerning his efforts to obtain counsel, the court will address the

3

third factor, plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.

4

The three factors outlined in Bradshaw

5

9

are simply ingredients in the total mix of relevant information
which should guide the discretion of the district court. . . . We do
not suggest that plaintiff should be saddled with formalized
requirements such as the filing of affidavits, statements, or
structured pleadings. “Such technicalities are particularly
inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by
trained lawyers, initiate the process.” District courts should be
sensitive to the problems faced by pro se litigants and innovative in
their responses to them.

10

Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309, 1310 (5th Cir.1977) (internal citation and

11

quotation omitted), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Hodges v. Dep't of Corr., 895

12

F.2d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir.1990).

6
7
8

13

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

14

1. Within seven days of this order, plaintiff shall complete and file an application to

15

proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for appointment of counsel with a declaration as set forth

16

herein.

17

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff an application to proceed in forma

18

pauperis and a copy of this court’s General Order Number 188.

19

Dated: May 9, 2014

20

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

21

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23

GGH:076/Robinson2783.financ

24
25
26
27
28
2