Hankishiyev v. ARUP Laboratories et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/10/15 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RAFAEL G. HANKISHIYEV,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
& ORDER
Case No. 2:15-cv-00651
v.
ARUP LABORATORIES,
United States District Court Judge Jill N.
Parrish
Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead by District Judge Jill Parrish
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) (doc. 2).
On September 10, 2015, Plaintiff Rafael G. Hankishiyev (“Plaintiff”) filed his pro se
Complaint against Defendant ARUP Laboratories (“Defendant”) claiming he was improperly
terminated “in retaliation to [sic] my protected conduct” pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 for employment discrimination (doc. 1, p.4). Currently pending is Plaintiff’s
Motion For Appointment of Counsel (doc. 17).
A plaintiff in an employment discrimination case has no statutory or constitutional right
to the appointment of counsel. See Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417,
1420 (10th Cir. 1992). Title VII, however, provides the court with “discretionary statutory
authority to appoint an attorney for a Title VII complainant upon request ‘in such circumstances
as the court may deem just.’” Vera v. Utah Dep’t. of Human Servs., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1521
(citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). Under Title VII, a litigant need not be indigent to qualify for
appointed counsel. Id. Compare. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).1 In making a decision whether to appoint
counsel, there are four factors the court should consider: “(1) the plaintiff’s financial inability to
afford counsel; (2) his diligence in attempting to secure counsel; (3) the merits of his case; and
(4) in close cases, the plaintiff’s capacity to prepare and present the case without the aid of
counsel.” Vera at *6 at 1421. The obligation is on Plaintiff to make an affirmative showing of
the relevant factors. Id. (citing Darden v .Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 1986).
Here, Plaintiff provides no evidence in support of his request. Rather, Plaintiff’s
“motion” consists of a singular sentence in which Plaintiff “moves the court for an order
appointing legal counsel to act on his behalf” (doc. 17). Absent additional information the court
is not equipped to make a proper determination on appointment and accordingly Plaintiff’s
motion is hereby denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of November, 2015.
____________________________________
Dustin Pead
U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge
1
Appointment of counsel for indigent plaintiffs is contemplated under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). Here, Plaintiff does not proceed in forma pauperis and has paid the requisite filing fees
(doc. 1).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?