Wilborn v. Wolf

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAROLD L. WILBORN Case No.: 20cv1981-LAB (BGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 13 v. CORRECT AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND 14 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS

15 Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 16

18 19 On April 28, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, and 20 directed the Clerk to file the proposed amended complaint. However, it appears 21 the complaint that was docketed (Docket no. 28) was not the version Plaintiff 22 intended to file, and which the Court directed the Clerk to file. In its order granting 23 in part the government’s motion to clarify, the Court proposed to retain the two 24 exhibits (Docket nos. 28-1 and 28-2) but replace the body of the amended 25 complaint in Docket no. 28 with the complaint Plaintiff proposed (Docket no. 22 at 26 15–45.) Plaintiff has filed a notice agreeing to the change. The Clerk is directed to 27 correct the amended complaint as proposed. Defendant shall answer or otherwise 28 respond by June 7, 2021. 1 In his notice, Plaintiff requested appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. 2 ||§ 2000e-5. “There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for employment 3 || discrimination claims ....” [vey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 4 ||269 (9th Cir. 1982). When ruling on a motion for appointment of counsel under 5 ||§ 2000e-5, the Court considers the plaintiffs financial resources, his efforts to 6 Secure counsel on his own, and the meritoriousness of his claim. /d. Plaintiff is not 7 || proceeding in forma pauperis and has not provided information about his financial 8 ||resources. It does not appear he has made any effort to secure counsel on his 9 own. Even if he cannot pay a retainer, he may be able to obtain counsel through a 10 ||contingency fee arrangement. See Ware v. Chertoff, 2008 WL 2653534, at *3 (D. 11 ||Haw., June 27, 2008) (in awarding fees under § 2000e-5(k), noting that plaintiff 12 ||had contingency arrangement with counsel). Whether Plaintiff's claim is 13 ||meritorious is unclear, though the government’s answer or other response to the 14 ||amended complaint will likely shed light on that issue. At present, this factor does 15 |/not clearly weigh either for or against appointment of counsel. 16 After consideration of the relevant factors, Plaintiff's request for appointment 17 counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: May 27, 2021 21 lA AB WY 22 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 33 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28