Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fritz v. Potter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 26, 2009

PETER FRITZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for a court-appointed attorney. Three factors are relevant to the determination of whether counsel should be appointed to represent a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case such as this one appears to be: (1) the plaintiff's financial resources, (2) the efforts already made by the plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff's claims have merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). Appointment of counsel is not a matter of right. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982).

Here, the court previously granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has made an adequate showing of indigency, thereby satisfying the first relevant factor. The second factor has not been satisfied because plaintiff has not revealed any efforts to secure counsel. As to the third factor, while the court has not prejudged the case, plaintiff has not shown that his claims have merit such that counsel should be appointed. For these reasons, plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 23, 2009 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 14) is denied.

20090326

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.