Brown v. Beverly Construction Company

Filing 10

ORDER AND REASONS denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 7/22/14. (plh) Modified doc type on 7/22/2014 (plh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JEROME BROWN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER: 14-1373

BEVERLY CONSTRUCTION CO.

SECTION: “R”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS

Pursuant to an order of reference from the presiding District Judge, presently before
the Court is Plaintiff’s application for the appointment of an attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§2000e-5(f)(1). (Rec. doc. 9, 5). For the reasons that follow, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s
application is denied without prejudice.
The appointment of counsel is by no means automatic and is generally limited to
cases presenting “exceptional circumstances.” Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th
Cir. 1997); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). In determining
whether to exercise its discretion to make such an appointment, a court may inquire as to
the efforts that were made by a plaintiff to retain counsel on his or her own. Ulmer, 691
F.2d at 213. Those efforts have been described as “diligent.” Johnson v. Hertz Corp., 316
F.Supp. 961, 962 (S.D. Tex. 1970); Green v. Cotton Concentration Co., 294 F.Supp. 34, 36 (S.D.
Tex. 1968). Although a plaintiff is not required to exhaust the legal directory before the

appointment of counsel becomes appropriate, Caston v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 556 F.2d
1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977), efforts in that regard must be more than singular to be
reasonable. Edmonds v. E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co., 315 F.Supp. 523, 524 (D. Kan. 1970);
Petete v. Consolidated Freightways, 313 F.Supp. 1271, 1271-72 (N.D. Tex. 1970). As Plaintiff
herein makes a showing of having contacted but one attorney prior to filing his application,
the application is hereby denied without prejudice.
Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of

July

, 2013.

MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2