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
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?