Maneaux v. Denson et al

Filing 16

ORDER re 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Donald James Maneaux: It is ORDERED that the EEOC file a copy of its investigative file into the record by April 12, 2013. Any documents as to which the EEOC asserts the deliberative information priv ilege shall be produced directly to the offices of the undersigned for in camera inspection. (Compliance Deadline set for 4/12/2013.) It is FURTHER ORDERED that, upon receipt of the EEOC file, the Clerk shall mail a copy of the file to plaintiff. Plaintiffs response is due ten days from his receipt of the EEOC file. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 3/8/2013. (crt,Dauterive, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
DONALD J. MANEAUX

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0033

VS.

JUDGE DOHERTY

SCHOOL BOARD ST. MARTIN
PARISH, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the court is a Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by pro se
plaintiff, Donald J. Maneaux, on January 7, 2013.1
The plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel in connection with this
employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which
affords courts discretion to appoint counsel. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) ("[u]pon
application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem
just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant[.])"
A civil rights plaintiff has no absolute right to an appointed counsel. Rather,
the decision of whether to provide counsel lies solely within the discretion of the
court. Salmon v. Corpus Christi I.S.D., 911 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1990);
Gonzalez v. Carlin, 907 F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Caston v. Sears,
1

The Court determined that plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay a partial filing fee. See
Rec. Doc. 6.

Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir.1977); Johnson v. City of Port Arthur, 892
F.Supp. 835, 839 (E.D.Tex.1995).
The Fifth Circuit has set forth three general factors in evaluating
applications for appointment of counsel in Title VII cases. Caston, 556 F.2d at
1309-10. The factors are: (1) the effort taken by the complainant to obtain
counsel on his or her own, (2) the complainant's financial ability to retain counsel,
and (3) the merits of the complainant's claims of discrimination. See also Neal v.
IAM Local Lodge 2386, 722 F.2d 247, 250 (5th Cir.1984).
The first factor requires a determination regarding plaintiff's efforts to
obtain counsel. Plaintiff has indicated that he called one attorney but “I didn’t
have the money he wanted.” He stated that he contacted the Legal Aid Bureau,
Southern Legal and other legal assistance agencies but they either had no funds or
were not taking new cases. Consequently, this factor has been satisfied.
The second factor relates to the plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. The Court determined that claimant had sufficient funds to pay a partial
filing fee. However, he was granted in forma pauperis status. Consequently, the
second factor has been satisfied.
Finally, with respect to the merits of plaintiff's claim, the court must
consider the determination of the EEOC. While an unfavorable determination
2

must be considered, it cannot be given preclusive effect. An adverse EEOC
determination may "weigh heavily in the scales against appointing an attorney"
only when the court finds "the EEOC determination is supported by substantial
evidence in the investigative file and that the plaintiff's objections thereto are
patently frivolous." Caston, 556 F.2d at 1309; see also Neal, 722 F.2d at 250.
The attachments to plaintiff’s complaint indicate that claimant filed Charge
No. 461-2010-02131 on March 19, 2011. On December 5, 2012, the EEOC
indicated that it was closing its file because “[b]ased on its investigation, the
EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of
the statutes.”
In Neal, the Fifth Circuit, in reviewing the Magistrate’s denial of a request
for an attorney, remanded the case, stating that “[t]he Magistrate in this case did
nothing more than review the allegations in the complaint." Neal at 249. Because
very little information was contained in the Complaint and the attached EEOC
documents, I find there is insufficient information in the record at this time to
make an evaluation of plaintiff's claim.
The Fifth Circuit has acknowledged the propriety of a Magistrate Judge's
review of the EEOC investigative file for the purpose of evaluating the merit of a
Title VII claim. Neal, 722 F.2d at 250. In the instant case, the EEOC’s file is not
3

in the record; thus, I will order the EEOC to file a copy of their investigative file
of the plaintiff's claims in this record.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the EEOC file a copy of its
investigative file, including any computer-generated notes, regarding Donald J.
Maneaux, Charge No. 461-2010-02132, into the record by April 12, 2013. Any
documents as to which the EEOC asserts the deliberative information privilege
shall be produced directly to the offices of the undersigned for in camera
inspection.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon receipt of the EEOC file, the
Clerk shall mail a copy of the file to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s response is due ten days
from his receipt of the EEOC file.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this
Order to the EEOC, New Orleans Field Office, 1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1900,
New Orleans, LA 70112.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on March 8, 2013.

Copy sent: EEOC
By: MBD
On: 3-8-2013

4