Nancy E. Saunier-Howes v. Department of Veterans Affairs; Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veteran Affairs

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NANCY E. SAUNIER-HOWES CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 26-935

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SECTION: “M” (5)

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Appointment of counsel (rec. doc. 3) filed by Plaintiff, Nancy E. Saunier-Howes. Having reviewed the pleading and the applicable law, the Court ruleIs. asB faocllkogwrso.u nd Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant, Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veteran Affairs, on April 30, 2026. (Rec. doc. 1). The action is brought for employment discriminatIidon pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ( .). The case involves the alleged discrimination Plaintiff faced by the agency management officials at the VA Southeast Louisiana Veterans Healthcare system in New Orleans, Louisiana, on the bases of her race and disability, as well as reprisal for prior protected equal employment opportunity activity when, on or about May 3, 2017, Plaintiff was denied a non-competitive promIdotion to her target grade for her Chief Health Information Management position. ( .). Plaintiff received a favorable decision in the amount of $11,000 on January 30, 2026, on a claim for compensatory damages submitted to the Department of Veteran Affairs in connection with the facts mentioned above. (Rec. doc. 1-7). Plaintiff alleges she has continued to experience discrimination by Defendant for many years prior to the filing of this lawsuit due to an unknown condition that went undiagnosed until 2020. (Rec. doc. 1). Plaintiff was allegedly refused reasonable

accommodation, terminated while on leave seeking medical attention, not paid for overtime, and subjecItd to workplace discrimination through the abuse of foul language, exclusion, and inaction. ( .). She claims the actions by Defendant continue to affect the loss of enjoyment of liIfIe., cLaarwee ar,n fdam Ainlya, llyossits w ages, and benefits.

The Court’s power to “appoint counsel” is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which provides that the “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” PlainSteieff C haasst onne vit. hSeera ras ,c Roonesbtiutuckti o&n Caol .n, or an automatic right to appointed counsel

in a civil case. 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977). Unlike a criminal defendant, an indigent civil rights litigant, even if currently incarSceeeraNtoerdt,o dno ve.s En.oUt. Dhaimvea zaa rniaght to appointed counsel absent “ex;c Aekpatisoiknea lv .c Firictzupmasttraicnkc, es.” , V12it2u gF .v3. dM 2e8ri6t ,S 2y9s.3 P (r5otthec tCioirn. 1B9d9. 7) 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994); , Civ. A. No. 01-3297, 2002 WL 1216023 (E. D. La. June 4, 2002). Indeed, the federal court has coSneesiSdaelrmabolne vd. iCscorreptuios nC hinri dsteit Ienrdmeipn. iSncgh woohl eDthisetr. to make such an appointment in a civil case. , 911 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1990). The Court has discretion to apSpeoei nUtl mcoeurn vs. eClh iann scuecllho ra,

case if doing so would advance the prop Sear lamdomninistration of justice. 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982); , 911 F.2d at 1166. STehe eC paslatoinnt,i ff bears the burden of persuasion as to the necessity of such an appointment. 556 F.2d at 1310. The evidence which must be adduced includes (1) plaintiff’s indigence and (2) efforts made to secure counstehlr. e shold

However, these are bare minimum considerations. Additionally, the Court

should consider the following factors:

(a) the type and complexity of the case; (b) whether the indigent is capable of presenting his case adequately; (c) whether he is in a position to investigate his case adequately; and (d) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as Parker v. Carpeton treerquire skill in the presentation of evidUelnmceer and in cross-examination. , 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); , 691 F.2d at 213. The Court also considers whether appointment of counsel wIdo. uld be of service to the court and the defendant by sharpening the issuesp ianu tpheer csatasetu. s This Court granted Plaintiff on May 5, 2026. (Rec. doc. 4). Plaintiff has attempted to retain counsel nine times. (Rec. doc. 3). The facts in this case are extensive as they span a long period of time and include the documentation of previous complaints and final agency decisions. Further, navigating an employment complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 can be highly complex. Thus, the Court finds that appointment of counsel would be of service to the Court in this caseII aI.n Cdo wniclll uasdivoann ce the administration of justice. AITc cIoSr OdRinDglEyR, E D GRANTED. that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (rec. doc. 3) is IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before August 10, 2026, the FBA-NO Pilot Counsel Panel for the appointment and provide that attorney’s name and contact information to the undersigned. Once that information is received, the Court will issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to designate that attorney on the docket sheet as counsel

for PlaiInTti IffS. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this order to t he Program Coordinator.

22nd July

New Orleans, Louisiana, this __________ day of __________________, 2026.

____________________________________ MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE