Jones v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General United States Postal Service (Pacific Area) Agency

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFFS 37 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KYUNG SOOK JONES, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 37 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-02849-HSG LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (PACIFIC AREA) AGENCY, 12 Defendant. 13 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dkt. No. 37. On 15 November 1, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion to appoint counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 16 27, 32. At that time, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s request in accordance with the factors set out 17 by the Ninth Circuit in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th 18 Cir. 1981). Under Bradshaw, in exercising its discretion regarding whether to appoint counsel, a 19 district court must assess: “(1) the plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts made by the 20 plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff’s claim has merit.” Id. 21 After reviewing Plaintiff’s current Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. No. 37, the Court 22 finds that the analysis of the three factors as they apply to Plaintiff and her case has not 23 meaningfully changed since the Court’s prior denial, see Dkt. No. 32. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel is again DENIED. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 1/7/2022 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 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?