Munoz v. Social Security Administration et al
Filing
107
ORDER Denying 102 Request for Appointment of Counsel. The Court finds that the circumstances here do not warrant appointing counsel to represent Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court Denies Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 3/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
GILBERTO G. MUNOZ, an
individual,
vs.
CASE NO. 10CV1003-MMA (NLS)
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
[Doc. No. 102]
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff Gilberto Munoz (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion
17
seeking the appointment of counsel. [Doc. No. 102.] Plaintiff has requested court-
18
appointed counsel on three previous occasions. [Doc. Nos. 3, 11, 23.] A jury trial to
19
decide the amount of damages, if any, Plaintiff should be awarded for impermissible
20
medical inquiries made by Defendant is scheduled to begin on April 30, 2013. For
21
the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
22
The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case.
23
See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, a district
24
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).
26
“Three factors are relevant to a trial court’s determination of whether to appoint
27
counsel: (1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to
28
secure counsel on his or her own; and (3) the merit of the plaintiff’s claim.”
-1-
10CV1003
1
2
Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981).
Regarding the first factor, Plaintiff has not shown that he lacks the financial
3
resources to hire an attorney. His motion indicates that he is employed by the
4
County of San Diego and earns approximately $1,800 per month. He further states
5
that he is unable to find an attorney willing to represent him on terms he can afford.
6
However, Plaintiff fails to detail the financial arrangements offered to him, so the
7
Court cannot effectively analyze whether he can afford an attorney.
8
9
Regarding the second factor, Plaintiff has not shown that he made sufficient
efforts to secure counsel. A party seeking appointment of counsel need not “exhaust
10
the legal directory,” but is required to show that he made a “reasonably diligent
11
effort under the circumstances to obtain counsel.” Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1319.
12
Plaintiff states he has contacted three attorneys, but “due to the short amount of time
13
[between now and trial], [they] are either unwilling to take the case, set too many
14
conditions, and ask for too much up front. They also spend too much time just
15
criticizing how Plaintiff has handled his case.” [Mot. at 4.] It is clear from
16
Plaintiff’s motion that he cannot obtain representation due in part to his own
17
tardiness. Trial of this matter is scheduled to begin on April 30, 2013, but Plaintiff
18
failed to contact potential counsel until March 5, March 7, and March 13,
19
respectively. Furthermore, Plaintiff was aware that the case would reach trial as
20
early as November 26, 2012, when the Court granted partial summary judgment in
21
his favor. He could have sought representation then in order to afford counsel the
22
maximum amount of preparation time prior to the trial date, yet failed to do so.
23
Thus, under the circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to make a
24
reasonably diligent effort to obtain counsel.
25
Finally, with respect to the third factor, the Court notes that while Plaintiff’s
26
claims may have merit this does not outweigh the findings on the previous two
27
factors.
28
In any event, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal
-2-
10CV1003
1
issues involved, and is able to adequately articulate the basis of his claims. Plaintiff has
2
represented himself throughout the duration of the case, and is capable of doing so in
3
a non-complex, one-issue trial. The Court finds that the circumstances here do not
4
warrant appointing counsel to represent Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
5
Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 19, 2013
8
9
10
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
10CV1003
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?