Campbell v. Geithner

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Beeler denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Pro Se Handbook, # 2 Legal Help Center Flyer) (lblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
BRUCE E. CAMPBELL,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 10-05861 LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

v.
13
TIMOTHY GEITHNER,
14
15

[ECF No. 18]
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16
17

I. INTRODUCTION

18

On December 23, 2010, pro se Plaintiff Bruce Campbell filed a complaint against Defendant

19

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner alleging Title VII violations including gender, age, and

20

race discrimination, and a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime

21

wages. Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 Mr. Campbell requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis

22

and the court granted his request on January 6, 2011. 1/6/11 Order, ECF No. 7. On April 8, 2011,

23

Mr. Campbell moved the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him in this case. Motion, ECF No.

24

18. Because this case does not present “exceptional circumstances,” the court DENIES Mr.

25

Campbell’s motion.

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 10-05861 LB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

II. DISCUSSION

1
2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits a court to request an attorney to represent a person who is unable

3

to afford counsel. Unless a party may lose his physical liberty if he loses the case, there is generally

4

no constitutional right to an attorney in a civil action. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. of Durham

5

Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985)

6

(citation omitted). Nonetheless, the court may request counsel under § 1915(e)(1), but only in

7

“exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). To

8

determine whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the trial court should evaluate (1) the

9

likelihood of the indigent party’s success on the merits and (2) the indigent party’s ability to

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quotations

12
For the Northern District of California

articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. “Neither of these

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

and citation omitted).
Here, Mr. Campbell contends that appointment of counsel is proper because (1) he is unable to

13
14

afford an attorney, (2) he has made diligent efforts to secure representation, (3) he is likely to

15

succeed on the merits of his claims, and (4) his Type 1 Manic Depression significantly impedes his

16

ability to present his case. Motion, ECF No. 18 at 1-4. While Mr. Campbell is indigent and his

17

allegations, if true, present a strong case for relief, he appears exceptionally well-equipped to present

18

his claims, particularly in light of the complexity of the legal issues presented. Mr. Campbell’s

19

complaint and his motion to appoint counsel are well-written, well-organized, and present fairly

20

detailed accounts of the underlying facts. Complaint, ECF No. 1; Motion, ECF No. 18. Mr.

21

Campbell is also well-educated: he has a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration, a Masters

22

Degree in Organizational Behavior, a Certificate in Advanced Accounting Proficiency, and has

23

passed the Certified Internal Auditor examination. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶ 5. Considering

24

that the factual and legal issues surrounding Mr. Campbell’s discrimination and failure to pay

25

overtime claims are not particularly complicated and that he seems competent to present his case,

26

“exceptional circumstances” do not exist that warrant a request for counsel. As such, Mr.

27

Campbell’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

28

///
C 10-05861 LB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

2

1

III. CONCLUSION

2

Mr. Campbell’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The court encourages Mr.

3

Campbell to review the Northern District’s Pro Se Handbook that is attached to this order, and to

4

continue to consult the VLSP Legal Help Center for further assistance. A copy of the Legal Help

5

Center flyer is also attached to this order.

6

This disposes of ECF No. 18.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: April 21, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 10-05861 LB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

3