Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05030-MMC

Document 12

Filed 11/19/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 OPERATION DIGNITY, INC., et al., 15 Defendants 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff's motion, filed November 9, 2007, for appointment of counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(b)(1). Having considered the motion, the Court rules as follows. Because plaintiff will not be subjected to any possible loss of physical liberty if he does not prevail in the instant action, he has no right to appointment of counsel, see Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), nor are funds available from the district court to compensate appointed counsel. In an action alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act, however, a district court has discretion to appoint pro bono counsel. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613(b)(1). In considering a motion for appointment of counsel, a district court considers three factors: "(1) the plaintiff's financial resources, (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff's claim has merit." See Bradshaw / v. MARK ANTOINE FOSTER, Plaintiff, No. 07-5030 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:07-cv-05030-MMC

Document 12

Filed 11/19/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F. 2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth factors appropriate in considering motion for appointment of counsel for purposes of Title VII claim); Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1157 (D. Kan. 2001) (holding factors applicable to Title VII claim also applicable to motion for appointment of counsel for Fair Housing Act claim). In light of the Court's prior finding that plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis herein, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing with respect to his lack of financial resources. Plaintiff, however, has not identified any action he has taken to secure counsel, nor has plaintiff shown that his claim has merit. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2