Haller v. Mabus

Filing 4

ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Court Denies Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/24/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DAVID HALLER,

) Case No. 15-CV-1444-BTM-DHB
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v.
) APPOINT COUNSEL
)
RAYMOND E. MABUS, Secretary of )
the Navy
)
Defendants. )
)

19

On July 1, 2015, pro se Plaintiff, David Haller filed a Complaint

20

against Defendant, Raymond E. Mabus, Secretary of the Navy under Title

21

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq.,

22

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Plaintiff

23

alleges that he was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation while

24

employed by the United States Marine Corps. Defendant has not made an

25

appearance in this matter.

26
27

///
///

28
1
15cv1444-BTM-DHB

1

On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of

2

Counsel using the form under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (“Form”). There is

3

no right to counsel in civil cases and district courts may appoint counsel

4

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

5

1017 (9th Cir. 1991). In determining whether to appoint counsel under §

6

2000e-5(f)(1), a district court should consider the following three factors:

7

(1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) efforts made to secure counsel on

8

his or her own; and (3) the claim’s merit. See Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of

9

Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Ultimately, the determination

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

of whether to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the district
court. Id.
Upon reviewing the Form, the Court finds that though Plaintiff is
currently unemployed, his financial situation does not appear to warrant
appointment of pro bono counsel. Additionally, though Plaintiff claims to
have contacted a number of attorneys who either failed to return his call or
refused to take his case due to its complexity, Plaintiff has not supplied a

18

log of those efforts (Doc. 3, at 4). Thus, the Court cannot determine

19

whether Plaintiff has made a diligent effort to obtain counsel. Plaintiff’s

20

filings also indicate that he appears capable of litigating this matter pro se.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
2
15cv1444-BTM-DHB

1
2
3

Additionally, based on the facts in the Complaint, the Court cannot
at this time say that there is any likelihood of success on the merits.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint

4

counsel without prejudice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: August 24, 2015

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15cv1444-BTM-DHB