Henson v. Embassy Suites Hotel et al

Filing 6

ORDER BY JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 5 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 **E-Filed 4/19/2010** 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Larry James Henson ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action on February 17, 2010, alleging that Defendants Embassy Suites Hotel, S. Milburn, S. Barbu, W. Hawkins, and G. Patash (collectively, "Defendants") discriminated against and terminated him because of his disability, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On March 9, 2010, after reviewing the financial information provided by Plaintiff, the Court determined that Plaintiff could pay the filing fee and denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). IFP Application at 2-3 (indicating that Plaintiff received $1,124.00 in monthly unemployment insurance, that his wife received $1,734.00 in monthly social security insurance). Plaintiff now requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1)(B), a district court may appoint counsel in Title VII cases "in such circumstances as the court may deem just." In determining whether to appoint Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ( JF L C 1 ) LARRY JAMES HENSON, Plaintiff, v. EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, S. MILBURN, S. BARBU, W. HAWKINS, AND G. PATASH, Defendants. Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [re: docket no. 5] 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, 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 claim has merit." See Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). The Court previously denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the same reason, the Court will deny Plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel. In addition to having adequate financial resources, Plaintiff has not satisfied the second factor of the Bradshaw test, as his effort to secure counsel has been limited to contacting four attorneys. Application at 3. Plaintiff need not "exhaust the legal directory," Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1319 (citation omitted), but he should at least contact a California State Bar-approved lawyer referral service. Guidelines for Fed. Pro Bono Project of N.D. Cal. (the "Guidelines") 1. Nor does he explain why the attorneys he did contact declined to take his case. Application at 3. Because Plaintiff fails to satisfy the first two Bradshaw factors, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether Plaintiff's claim has merit. Good cause therefor appearing, the application for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 19, 2010 _____________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge 2 Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (JFLC1) 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 This Order has been served upon the following persons: Larry James Henson 1307 Soto Street Seaside, CA 93955 3 Case Number C 10-00794 JF (HRL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (JFLC1)

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?