Williams v. Vermilion Parish et al

Filing 12

ORDER re 11 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Martin Renee Williams. Motion day set for 7/26/2016 before Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna without oral argument. Compliance Deadline set for 6/6/2016 that plaintiff may file a written statement with the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 5/23/2016. (crt,FinnSld, P)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARTIN RENEE WILLIAMS

CIVIL NO. 6:16-0216

VERSUS

JUDGE DOHERTY

SHERIFF MICHAEL COUVILLION

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the court is a Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by plaintiff,
Martin Renee Williams, on May 20, 2016. [rec. doc. 11]. Plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis. [rec. doc. 4].
Plaintiff filed suit on February 16, 2016 alleging that she was subjected to
race and gender discrimination while employed by the Vermilion Parish Sheriff's
Office. More specifically, she alleges that during her employment she was
subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than her white
counterparts, and ultimately was dismissed from her employment on December 20,
2013.
By the instant motion, plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel in connection
with this Title VII discrimination suit under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(f)(1).1
1

Section 706(f)(1) of the Civil Rights Act provides:
"[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 and may authorize the
commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs, or security." 42 U.S.C.

2

A Title VII plaintiff has no absolute right to an appointed counsel. Salmon
v. Corpus Christi I.S.D., 911 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1990). Rather the decision
of whether to provide counsel lies solely within the discretion of the court.
Gonzalez v. Carlin, 907 F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1990) citing Caston v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1977), o'ruled on other grounds by
Hodges v. Dept. of Corrections, 895 F.2d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir. 1990). The Fifth
Circuit has set forth three general factors in evaluating applications for
appointment of counsel in Title VII cases. 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. Id. citing Caston, 556 F.2d at 1309-10 and Neal v. IAM Local
Lodge 2386, 722 F.2d 247, 250 (5th Cir. 1984).
The record contains sufficient information for the undersigned to make a
determination with respect to the first and second factors. However, on the record
currently before the court, the undersigned cannot make a determination with
respect to the third factor, the merits of plaintiff's claim.
In order to evaluate the merits of plaintiff’s claim, the court must consider
the determination of the EEOC. An unfavorable determination is “highly

§2000e-5(f)(1).

3

probative.” However, it cannot be given preclusive effect. An adverse EEOC
determination “is not to be ignored.” This is particularly true when the finding is
supported by substantial evidence in the investigative file. Such circumstances
“weigh heavily in the scales against appointing an attorney.” Caston, 556 F.2d at
1309; Neal, 722 F.2d 250. Thus, the Fifth Circuit has acknowledged the propriety
of a Magistrate Judge's review of the EEOC investigative file for the purpose of
evaluating the merits of a Title VII claim. Neal, 722 F.2d at 250.
Plaintiff alleges that she received a "dismissal/right to sue letter" from the
EEOC dated November 16, 2015. A copy of that letter is not attached to the
pleading. Accordingly, the record does not disclose the basis for the EEOC's
adverse determination. Additionally, the EEOC’s investigative file is not in the
record. Thus, the undersigned cannot determine if the adverse determination was
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, there is insufficient information
in the record at this time to make an evaluation of the merits of plaintiff's claim.
In order for this court to obtain the investigative file and any additional
information relied upon by the EEOC in making its determination with respect to
plaintiff’s charge, the EEOC customarily requires a court order. A separate order
will issue directing the filing of the EEOC’s investigative file. To the extent any
documents contained in that file may be protected by the deliberative information

privilege, the undersigned shall conduct an in camera inspection and shall place
all such documents under seal.
The weight of authority requires that a plaintiff establish a prima facie
claim, or a claim that has at least "some chance" of prevailing. Poindexter v. FBI,
737 F.2nd 1173, 1187 (D.C.Cir.1984). See also Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph
Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir.1984). Therefore, any additional
information from Martin Renee Williams concerning the merits of her claim may
be submitted to facilitate a thorough evaluation. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff, Martin Renee Williams, may file a written
statement with the court on or before June 6, 2016 Martin Renee Williams
possesses which would establish that she was subjected to racial or gender
discrimination during employment or that she was fired because of racial or
gender discrimination;
The Clerk is directed to set plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
[rec. doc. 3] for consideration without oral argument on the undersigned’s July
26, 2016 motion calendar.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 23rd day of May, 2016.

___________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE