Ellis v. Kaiser Permanente et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying without prejudice 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/29/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHA’LENA E. ELLIS,

CASE NO. 16cv195-LAB (KSC)

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.
13
14

KAISER PERMANENTE, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

This case arises out of Kaiser Permanente’s termination of Sha’lena Ellis’

18

employment. Ellis brings this suit against Kaiser Permanente and several of its officers and

19

employees for claims arising under the Civil Rights Act and for wrongful termination. Ellis

20

has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

21

42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1). (Docket no. 5).

22

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) gives district courts discretion to appoint counsel “in such

23

circumstances as the court may deem just.” The court evaluates the plaintiff’s financial

24

resources, efforts to obtain counsel, and the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. Bradshaw v.

25

Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662.F.2d 1301, at 1318 (9th Cir. 1981).

26

Ellis has contacted two attorneys, and has allegedly attempted to contact an

27

unspecified number of attorneys from a list the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

28

(EEOC) provided her. She contends that she never heard back from any of the attorneys on

-1-

16cv195-LAB (KSC)

1

the EEOC list. However, she gives no indication of what she did to follow up with them. Ellis’

2

efforts are insufficient. See Williams v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 2014 WL 7404604, at *3

3

(D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) (reasoning plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain counsel were insufficient

4

where the plaintiff contacted seven attorneys); see also Turner v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL

5

6571413, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 13, 2010) (same).

6

The merits of Ellis’ case are not yet clear. Cf. Howard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2015 WL

7

1622981, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) (“While Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits

8

is hard to estimate at this stage, if he is likely to succeed, that suggests . . . that he could

9

probably find a private attorney to take the case for him.”) The legal basis for her claims do

10

not appear to be complex and she appears capable of articulating the facts. See Vanhorn

11

v. U.S. Gov't Contracted Hana Grp., Inc., 2012 WL 1571509, at *2 (D. Haw. May 3, 2012).

12

Thus, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the Court DENIES Ellis’s motion without

13

prejudice.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 29, 2016

16
17

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

16cv195-LAB (KSC)