Thibeault v. Brennan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Daniel Thibeault filed a motion to appoint counsel in his employment discrimination case against Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had adequate financial resources and the ability to articulate his claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's discretionary standard for appointing counsel in civil rights cases. The order recites specific facts regarding the plaintiff's financial status ($18,000 in savings and a $750,000 home) which directly contradicts the typical 'inability to pay' requirement for appointed counsel. The court also noted the plaintiff's ability to articulate claims and the non-complexity of the issues, which are valid factors under the *Bradshaw* test. The denial is supported by the record presented in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the governing legal standard from Ninth Circuit precedent (*Bradshaw*, *Johnson*, *Hedges*) and applies it to the specific facts recited in the order. The court explicitly addresses the financial factor, noting the plaintiff's significant assets, which is the most dispositive factor in this context. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a discretionary denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL THIBEAULT, Case No.: 19-CV-1682-CAB-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, [Doc. No. 2] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel pursuant to the Civil 20 Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiff asserts that his 21 claim is meritorious, that he had made a reasonably diligent effort to obtain counsel, and is 22 unable to find an attorney willing to represent him on terms that he can afford. [Id. at 1.] 23 Plaintiff states he has $18,000.00 in savings or checking accounts and owns a home valued 24 at $750,000.00. [Id. at 6.] 25 Although this statute authorizes district courts to appoint counsel “in such 26 circumstances as the court may deem just,” the courts are “not obligated to appoint counsel 27 in every employment discrimination case.” Johnson v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, 28 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). This determination is “left to the sound discretion of 1 district court.” Jd. “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” 2 || Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court evaluates 3 plaintiff’s financial resources, plaintiff's efforts to obtain counsel, and the merits of 4 ||plaintiffs claims. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th 5 || Cir. 1981). 6 The Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his 7 |{claims. The legal issues are not complex, and it is premature to determine the likelihood 8 ||of success on the merits at this time. Furthermore, while Plaintiff has made some efforts 9 ||to obtain counsel, he has demonstrated adequate financial resources which weighs against 10 |/the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is 11 DENIED. 12 It is SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: September 6, 2019 14 □ 2 15 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28