Bangoura v. Andre Boudin Bakeries Inc.

Filing 10

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/21/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ig, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
SORIBA BANGOURA,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ANDRE BOUDIN BAKERIES,

15

No. C 12-02749 (DMR)

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff Soriba Bangoura filed this Title VII employment discrimination case on May 29,

18

2012. [See Docket No. 1] On June 7, 2012, Plaintiff moved the court to appoint an attorney or legal

19

advisor to assist in this case, as Plaintiff is unable to afford representation. [Docket No. 5.] For the

20

following reasons, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice.

21

As a general rule, there is no right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Lee v. AT&T Corp.,

22

No. 09-5614-RS, 2010 WL 2348683, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2010). However, the Civil Rights Act

23

of 1964 permits appointment of counsel in employment discrimination cases “‘in such circumstances

24

as the court may deem just.’” Id. (quoting Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d

25

1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981)) (citation omitted). To discern whether such circumstances exist, the

26

court must examine “1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; 2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to

27

secure counsel; and 3) the relative merit of the plaintiff’s claims.” Id. (citing Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at

28

1318).

1

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis indicates that Plaintiff has had no income

2

stream for over a year, has few assets, and has fallen behind on rent payments. [See Docket No. 2.]

3

The court concludes that Plaintiff does not have the financial resources to hire a lawyer and,

4

therefore, meets the requirements of the first factor. See Lee, 2010 WL 2348683, at *2. Turning to

5

the second factor, Plaintiff has provided no information regarding attempts to secure counsel. With

6

respect to the third factor, the relative merits of the case, the record before the court at this time is

7

too skeletal to make a proper evaluation. In sum, the court finds that Plaintiff does not fulfill the

8

requirements for the appointment of counsel at this time.

9

denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Because Plaintiff has not fulfilled the requisites to secure appointment of counsel, the court

The court takes this opportunity to direct Plaintiff to resources referenced on the Court’s

12

website, www.cand.uscourts.gov, under the Quick Link “If You Don’t Have a Lawyer.” These

13

resources include the Pro Se Handbook, as well as information about the Legal Help Center, a free

14

service offered by the Bar Association of San Francisco. Appointments for the San Francisco Legal

15

Help Center can be made by calling 415-782-9000 ext. 8657.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: June 21, 2012

20
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2