Loyola v. Potter
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/30/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EDGARDO LOYOLA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. POTTER, Defendant. _______________________________/ Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. As noted in the court's April 16, 2009, order denying appointment of counsel, plaintiff has failed to satisfy two of the three requirements set forth in Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). While plaintiff may have limited financial resources, that factor is only one of three that the court must consider. Here, plaintiff has made no showing that he has attempted to obtain counsel on his own, and has made no effort to establish that his claim is meritorious. See id. at 1318. In view of the fact that the EEOC specifically found that plaintiff's claims were not meritorious, appointment of counsel is not warranted at this stage of the litigation. No. C 09-0575 PJH ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 30, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?