Haile v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital et al

Filing 178

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT ASSISTANCE TO FIND ATTORNEY. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 15, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/16/2010: # 1 proof of service) (tdm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's "Request for Court's Assistance to Find an Atty for Representation on His Cause," filed March 10, 2010. Having read and considered the request, and having reviewed the docket of the instant matter, the Court rules as follows. Because plaintiff will not be subjected to any possible loss of physical liberty if he does not prevail in the instant action, he has no right to appointment of counsel, see Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), nor are funds available from the district court to compensate appointed counsel. In employment actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, however, pro bono counsel may be appointed "[u]pon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). In considering an application for appointment of counsel under § 2000e-5(f)(1), the district court assesses three factors: v. SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants / TSEGAI HAILE, Plaintiff, No. 08-4149 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT'S ASSISTANCE TO FIND ATTORNEY United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"(1) the plaintiff's financial resources, (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff's claim has merit." See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F. 2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing with respect to any of the abovereferenced factors. Plaintiff has not shown he lacks the financial resources to hire an attorney. Further, plaintiff has not shown he has made any effort to secure new counsel following his decision to terminate his relationship with the attorney who previously represented him herein. Finally, a jury has determined that plaintiff's claims lack merit. In sum, plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to justify a search for volunteer counsel willing to accept an appointment. Accordingly, plaintiff's request is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2