Bo v. Board of Regents of the University of California

S.D. California

Bo v. Board of Regents of the University of California

DecidedMay 9, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-02212

StatusUnknown

This text of Bo v. Board of Regents of the University of California (Bo v. Board of Regents of the University of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bo v. Board of Regents of the University of California, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Huyun BO, Case No.: 24-cv-2212-AGS-KSC

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 5 v. MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF 2) AND TO 6 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EXPEDITE TRIAL SCHEDULE CALIFORNIA, et al., 7 (ECF 9) Defendants. 8

9 Plaintiff Huyun Bo asks the Court to appoint counsel on his behalf under 42 U.S.C. 10 § 2000e-5 and to expedite the trial schedule. (See ECF 2; ECF 9.) But he does not qualify 11 for counsel appointment and has made no showing that an expedited schedule is warranted. 12 “[I]n such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an 13 attorney.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). When determining whether to appoint counsel under 14 this “employment discrimination case” provision, courts consider three factors: “(1) the 15 plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his 16 or her own; and (3) the merit of the plaintiff’s claim.” Johnson v. United States Dep’t of 17 Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Bo represents that he is unemployed with 18 only $1,000, and that he unsuccessfully tried to retain three attorneys—so he satisfies the 19 first two factors. (ECF 2, at 3–4, 6.) His request falters, however, at the third factor. 20 To succeed on a Civil Rights Act employment-discrimination claim, Bo “must state 21 a colorable case of employment discrimination.” See In re Farnham, No. C-81-144 MISC, 22 1981 WL 26994, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 1981). But his complaint is void of any allegation 23 that he was ever employed by the defendant, so he cannot have leveled a meritorious 24 employment-discrimination claim. The Court denies his § 2000e-5 appointment request. 25 Still, the Court can separately appoint an attorney to “represent any person unable to 26 afford counsel” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). But it may only do so in “exceptional 27 circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). “When determining 28 1 || whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success 2 ||on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 3 || of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (cleaned up). 4 At this stage of the analysis, it cannot be said that Bo is likely to succeed in his 5 || “Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment|]” and “double jeopardy” claims. (ECF 1, at 3.) 6 || His lawsuit is premised upon his disagreement with a university’s decision to “suspend[]” 7 || him “from the University of California for four calendar years” after finding that he was 8 || “stalking” his ex-girlfriend on an “extremely and invasive scale” in addition to leveling 9 || “multiple threats” against her, her pet, and her new boyfriend. (ECF 1-2, at 15.) However 10 “unfair and irresponsible” he may believe that the decision was, his complaint does not 11 allege anything that rises to the level of a Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendment violation, 12 any double-jeopardy concerns. (See ECF 1, at 3, 8.) Bo even concedes that he faces an 13 || uphill legal battle, acknowledging that the “‘Double Jeopardy Clause’ does not apply in 14 || this case.” Ud. at 16.) So, although he “hopes to advance [the] American judiciary” by 15 || changing that in “this case” (ECF 1, at 16), his admitted lack of a legal basis is a strong 16 ||indication that he is unlikely to succeed, see Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. And his ability to 17 ||recognize that fact indicates that he is “able to articulate his claims” pro se. See id. There 18 || are thus no “exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel tn this case. 19 Nor has Bo made a showing that the Court should issue an “expedited trial schedule.” 20 || (See ECF 9, at 2.) He may be “in the prime of youth” (id.), but that is not a sufficient ground 21 || to expedite trial—especially given the faulty merits of his claim. Bo’s counsel-appointment 22 expedited trial requests are DENIED. As there are no hearings scheduled in this case, 23 ||his request to appear remotely is DENIED AS MOOT. If the Court schedules any 24 || hearings, he may file his remote-appearance and interpretation requests at that time. 25 Dated: May 9, 2025

27 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 28 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Huyun BO, Case No.: 24-cv-2212-AGS-KSC

4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 5 v. MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF 2) AND TO 6 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EXPEDITE TRIAL SCHEDULE CALIFORNIA, et al., 7 (ECF 9) Defendants. 8

9 Plaintiff Huyun Bo asks the Court to appoint counsel on his behalf under 42 U.S.C. 10 § 2000e-5 and to expedite the trial schedule. (See ECF 2; ECF 9.) But he does not qualify 11 for counsel appointment and has made no showing that an expedited schedule is warranted. 12 “[I]n such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an 13 attorney.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). When determining whether to appoint counsel under 14 this “employment discrimination case” provision, courts consider three factors: “(1) the 15 plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his 16 or her own; and (3) the merit of the plaintiff’s claim.” Johnson v. United States Dep’t of 17 Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Bo represents that he is unemployed with 18 only $1,000, and that he unsuccessfully tried to retain three attorneys—so he satisfies the 19 first two factors. (ECF 2, at 3–4, 6.) His request falters, however, at the third factor. 20 To succeed on a Civil Rights Act employment-discrimination claim, Bo “must state 21 a colorable case of employment discrimination.” See In re Farnham, No. C-81-144 MISC, 22 1981 WL 26994, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 1981). But his complaint is void of any allegation 23 that he was ever employed by the defendant, so he cannot have leveled a meritorious 24 employment-discrimination claim. The Court denies his § 2000e-5 appointment request. 25 Still, the Court can separately appoint an attorney to “represent any person unable to 26 afford counsel” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). But it may only do so in “exceptional 27 circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). “When determining 28 1 || whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success 2 ||on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 3 || of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (cleaned up). 4 At this stage of the analysis, it cannot be said that Bo is likely to succeed in his 5 || “Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment|]” and “double jeopardy” claims. (ECF 1, at 3.) 6 || His lawsuit is premised upon his disagreement with a university’s decision to “suspend[]” 7 || him “from the University of California for four calendar years” after finding that he was 8 || “stalking” his ex-girlfriend on an “extremely and invasive scale” in addition to leveling 9 || “multiple threats” against her, her pet, and her new boyfriend. (ECF 1-2, at 15.) However 10 “unfair and irresponsible” he may believe that the decision was, his complaint does not 11 allege anything that rises to the level of a Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendment violation, 12 any double-jeopardy concerns. (See ECF 1, at 3, 8.) Bo even concedes that he faces an 13 || uphill legal battle, acknowledging that the “‘Double Jeopardy Clause’ does not apply in 14 || this case.” Ud. at 16.) So, although he “hopes to advance [the] American judiciary” by 15 || changing that in “this case” (ECF 1, at 16), his admitted lack of a legal basis is a strong 16 ||indication that he is unlikely to succeed, see Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. And his ability to 17 ||recognize that fact indicates that he is “able to articulate his claims” pro se. See id. There 18 || are thus no “exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel tn this case. 19 Nor has Bo made a showing that the Court should issue an “expedited trial schedule.” 20 || (See ECF 9, at 2.) He may be “in the prime of youth” (id.), but that is not a sufficient ground 21 || to expedite trial—especially given the faulty merits of his claim. Bo’s counsel-appointment 22 expedited trial requests are DENIED. As there are no hearings scheduled in this case, 23 ||his request to appear remotely is DENIED AS MOOT. If the Court schedules any 24 || hearings, he may file his remote-appearance and interpretation requests at that time. 25 Dated: May 9, 2025

27 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 28 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bo v. Board of Regents of the University of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bo-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-of-california-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack