Winns v. Merit Systems Protection Board et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/24/2015. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2015)

*E-Filed: June 24, 2015*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HARRIS L. WINNS,

Case No. 15-cv-02313-HRL

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

v.
13
14
15
16

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION
BOARD, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Defendants.
Plaintiff Harris L. Winns was employed as a Sales & Services/Distribution Associate at the

17

U.S. Postal Service. His employment was terminated in October 2014. Plaintiff filed an appeal

18

challenging his termination, which an administrative law judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

19

Plaintiff filed a petition for review, and the United States Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed

20

the initial decision issued by the administrative law judge. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, now sues

21

the Merit Systems Protection Board, Megan Brennan (Postmaster General), and the U.S. Postal

22

Service, challenging the final order issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Plaintiff has

23

filed a motion to appoint counsel.

24

A district court may appoint counsel “[u]pon application by the complainant and in such

25

circumstances as the court may deem just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B). “Three factors are

26

relevant to a trial court’s determination of whether to appoint counsel: (1) the plaintiff’s financial

27

resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his or her own; and (3) the

28

merit of the plaintiff’s claim.” Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 27 F.3d 415, 416–17 (9th Cir.

1

1994) (quotation omitted).

2

In his motion, Plaintiff does not indicate that he has made any effort to retain any private

3

attorney to handle his claim. In addition, although the court refrains from ruling on the merits of

4

Plaintiff’s claim at this time, Plaintiff has not shown that the potential merit of his claim warrants

5

the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the second and third factors in Johnson weigh against

6

appointing counsel. The motion to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2015

9
________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2