Marchenko v. McHugh

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 11/16/2009. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 **E-Filed 11/16/09** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION VITALY G. MARCHENKO, Plaintiff, v. JOHN McHUGH, Secretary of the Army, [Docket No. 4] Defendant. Case Number C 09-03673 JF (PVT) ORDER1 DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL On August 11, 2009, Plaintiff Vitaly G. Marchenko ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, alleging that the United States Army ("the Army") unlawfully terminated him in retaliation for his complaints regarding unequal compensation based on gender and national origin. The complaint also alleged breach of contract, wrongful discharge, and management malpractice. On October 21, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges the Title VII violation, wrongful termination, and management malpractice, but amends the original complaint to dismiss the breach of contract claim and to allege violation of the Equal Pay Act. Plaintiff has filed a request for appointment of counsel. This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. C a se No. C 09-03673 JF (PVT) O R D E R DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (JFLC3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Counsel may be appointed in Title VII cases "in such circumstances as the court may deem just." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5. In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court must assess three factors: (1) the plaintiff's financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel; and (3) whether the plaintiff's claims have merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). After weighing the above factors, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff stated in his application that he "ha[s] made numerous, documented, but unsuccessful attempts to find an attorney who would take [his] case on a contingency basis" and that he has been unable to find a job and cannot afford an attorney. Plaintiff does not, however, provide the Court with any documentation of either his attempts to find an attorney or his financial resources. Without this information, the Court cannot conclude that appointment of counsel would be appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request will be denied without prejudice. ORDER Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. DATED: November 16, 2009 _________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge 2 C a se No. C 09-03673 JF (PVT) O R D E R DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (JFLC3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Copies of this Order have been served upon the following persons: Vitaly G Marchenko 9633 Sunland Place Sunland, CA 91040 Claire T. Cormier claire.cormier@usdoj.gov 3 C a se No. C 09-03673 JF (PVT) O R D E R DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (JFLC3)

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?