Thibeault v. Brennan

Opinion

DANIEL THIBEAULT, Case No.: 19-CV-1682-CAB-BLM

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, [Doc. No. 2] Defendant. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiff asserts that his claim is meritorious, that he had made a reasonably diligent effort to obtain counsel, and is unable to find an attorney willing to represent him on terms that he can afford. [Id. at 1.] Plaintiff states he has $18,000.00 in savings or checking accounts and owns a home valued at $750,000.00. [Id. at 6.] Although this statute authorizes district courts to appoint counsel “in such circumstances as the court may deem just,” the courts are “not obligated to appoint counsel in every employment discrimination case.” Johnson v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). This determination is “left to the sound discretion of district court.” Jd. “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court evaluates plaintiff’s financial resources, plaintiff's efforts to obtain counsel, and the merits of plaintiffs claims. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his {claims. The legal issues are not complex, and it is premature to determine the likelihood of success on the merits at this time. Furthermore, while Plaintiff has made some efforts to obtain counsel, he has demonstrated adequate financial resources which weighs against /the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is It is SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2019 □ 2 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge