Bailey v. St. Francis Tenet Healthcare

Filing 3

ORDER Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel and ORDER to Issue Service. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 10/29/07. (Breen, J.)

Bailey v. St. Francis Tenet Healthcare

Doc. 3

Case 2:07-cv-02673-JDB-sta

Document 3

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ________________________________________________________________ ) ( ( ) ) ( Plaintiff, ( ) ) ( vs. ( ) No. 07-2673-JDB/sta ) ( ST. FRANCIS TENET HEALTHCARE, ( ) ) ( Defendant. ( ) ) ( _________________________________________________________________ WILEY BAILEY, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND ORDER TO ISSUE SERVICE _________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Wiley Bailey has filed a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., with an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Clerk of

Court is ORDERED to file the case and to record the Defendant as St. Francis Tent Healthcare. Plaintiff Bailey has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. appoint Two statutes authorize the district court to request or counsel for an indigent plaintiff. Twenty-eight U.S.C. §

1915(d) provides that the "court may request an attorney to represent any such person unable to employ counsel."1 Similarly,

1 However, "§ 1915(d) does not authorize the federal courts to make coercive appointments of counsel" to represent indigent civil litigants. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-02673-JDB-sta

Document 3

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 2 of 3

under

42

U.S.C.

§

2000e-5(f)(1),

"upon

application

by

the

complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney." An employment discrimination

plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Generally, Moore v. Sunbeam Corp., 459 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1972). a court will only appoint counsel in exceptional

circumstances. Willett v. Wells, 469 F. Supp. 748, 751 (E.D. Tenn. 1977). Although "no comprehensive definition of exceptional

circumstances is practical," Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982), courts resolve this issue through a fact-specific inquiry. 1986). Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. Examining the pleadings and documents in the file, the

Court analyzes the merits of the claims, the complexity of the case, the pro se litigant's prior efforts to retain counsel, and his ability to present the claims. Henry v. City of Detroit

Manpower Dept., 763 F.2d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 1985); Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985). A review of this complaint indicates that the case is not so complex that the Court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel at this time. Plaintiff appears to understand the facts

and applicable law sufficiently to represent himself. Furthermore, it does not appear from the affidavit supporting his motion that he will be unable to obtain counsel on his own. The motion is DENIED.

2

Case 2:07-cv-02673-JDB-sta

Document 3

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 3 of 3

Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race and sex and suffered acts of retaliation while employed by St. Francis Tenet Healthcare. Plaintiff attached a

copy of a Notice of Right to Sue issued on July 26, 2007, which he alleges that he received on July 30, 2007. It is ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process for the Defendant on Plaintiff's claims of violation of Title VII and deliver said process to the marshal for service. Service shall be

made on Defendant either by mail pursuant to Rule 4(e)(1) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03 and 4.04(10) or personally pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04(4) if mail service is not effective. It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall serve a copy of every further document filed in this cause on the attorney for the Defendant, or on Defendant if it has no attorney. Plaintiff shall Plaintiff

make a certificate of service on every document filed.

shall promptly notify the Clerk of any change of address or whereabouts. Failure to comply with these requirements, or any

other order of the Court, may result in this case being dismissed without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2007. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3