Gossage v. Office of Personnel Management

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05765
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 HENRY GOSSAGE, Case No. 3:24-cv-05765-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 9 COUNSEL v. 10 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 11 MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; UNITED 13 STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; 14 MERIT SYSTEM PROTECTION BOARD, 15 Defendant. 16

17 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Henry Gossage’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 12. 18 For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Mr. Gossage’s motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Mr. Gossage filed this case on September 11, 2024. Dkt. 1. Mr. Gossage, a Vietnam War 21 veteran, alleges that his application to work at the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 22 Health Administration (“OSHA”) in 2000 was wrongfully denied and that he was retaliated 23 against based on his veteran status, race, age, and disability. See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 2.1, 3.3–3.32. He 24 1 states several causes of action, including violations of the United States Constitution, Uniformed 2 Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), and Title VII of the 3 Civil Rights Act of 1964. See id. ¶ 3.1. Mr. Gossage has alleged similar facts and claims in prior

4 lawsuits in this district. See, e.g., Gossage v. Terril, C12-0631-JCC, 2012 WL 12874960 (Nov. 8, 5 2012); Gossage v. Merit System Protection Bd., C16-5051-RBL, 2016 WL 1158695 (Mar. 23, 6 2016). 7 On November 27, 2024, Mr. Gossage filed this motion for court-appointed counsel. 8 Dkt. 12. He states that he has been granted a USERRA filing fee waiver in past cases. Id. at 1; 38 9 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(1) (“No fees or court costs may be charged or taxed against any person 10 claiming rights under this chapter.”). Mr. Gossage included no other basis for seeking court- 11 appointed counsel, including explanation of his financial resources, efforts he has made to secure 12 counsel, or the merit of his claim. See Dkt. 12.

13 II. DISCUSSION There is generally “no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case.” Adir Int’l, LLC v. 14 Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038–39 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted). 15 But in employment discrimination cases arising under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 16 Court may appoint counsel “[u]pon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as 17 the court may deem just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). When considering a request for counsel the 18 Court assesses the applicant’s financial resources, efforts the applicant has already made to 19 secure counsel, and whether the claim has merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 20 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). 21 Mr. Gossage has not provided enough information for the Court to assess his request for 22 counsel. Although the Court has granted Mr. Gossage a filing fee waiver based on his USERRA 23 claim, see Dkt. 1, USERRA does not provide a basis for appointment of counsel. See U.S.C. 24 l § 4323(h)(1). Nor does a USERRA fee waiver explain his financial resources. See Bradshaw, 2 662 F.2d at 1318. Mr. Gossage also has provided no information on his attempts to secure 3 counsel or provided sufficient information about the potential merit of his latest claims. See id; 4 || Dkt. 12. The Court’s resources for appointing counsel are limited and must be reserved for those 5 cases meeting the requirements of the Civil Rights Act. Mr. Gossage’s case does not currently 6 ||meet that standard. 7 Il. CONCLUSION g At this stage of the case, Mr. Gossage does not meet the requirements for court-appointed 9 counsel under Title VII. The Court therefore DENIES his motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 12.

10 This does not prevent Mr. Gossage from bringing another motion for appointed counsel at a later

ll stage of the case.

2 The Court encourages Mr. Gossage to review this District’s resources for pro se litigants, 13 available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se, including the Federal

14 Bar Association’s civil rights legal clinic, with more information available at

15 https://www.kcba.org/?pg=Neighborhood-Legal-Clinics. 16 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

17__ || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

18 Dated this 28th day of January, 2025.

Zag KE 0 Tiffany4. Cartwright United States District Judge 21 22 23 24