Sprague v. The Medical Board of California (MBC) et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/5/07. (vet)(pro per package mailed) Modified on 9/6/2007 - edited text (vet, ).

Sprague v. The Medical Board of California (MBC) et al

Doc. 7

Case 3:07-cv-01561-BTM-LSP

Document 7

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 1 of 2

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 Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 8, 2007. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Motion") and a motion tor appointment of counsel. In determining whether to appoint counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), a district court should consider the following three factors: (1) the plaintiff's financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his or her own; and (3) the merit of the plaintiff's claim. Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Ultimately, the determination of whether to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Id. Although the first two factors weigh in Plaintiff's favor, it is unclear at this early stage of litigation whether Plaintiff's claims have any merit. Furthermore, it appears from the Complaint, IFP Motion, and Request for Appointment of Counsel, that Plaintiff is wholly capable of representing herself. Therefore, Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel 1 MARGARET MELINDA SPRAGUE, v. THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CLAIFORNIA, ET AL., Defendants. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 07cv1561 BTM(LSP) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAPUERIS AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

07CV1561 BTM(LSP)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-01561-BTM-LSP

Document 7

Filed 09/05/2007

Page 2 of 2

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

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court has considered Plaintiff's declaration in support of her motion to proceed IFP, and finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fees and court costs. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to prosecute this action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. (2) The Clerk of Court shall file Plaintiff's Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee. (3) The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint and this Order upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. (4) Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants, or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants' attorneys, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted or filed for the Court's consideration. Plaintiff shall include with the original document to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of such document was served on Defendants or Defendants' counsel and the date of service. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 5, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

2

07CV1561 BTM(LSP)