Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
7
Case 3:07-cv-01561-BTM-LSP Document 7 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARGARET MELINDA SPRAGUE, CASE NO. 07cv1561 BTM(LSP)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAPUERIS
13 AND DENYING MOTION FOR
THE MEDICAL BOARD OF APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
14 CLAIFORNIA, ET AL.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 8, 2007. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion
18 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”) and a motion tor appointment of counsel.
19 In determining whether to appoint counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), a district
20 court should consider the following three factors: (1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the
21 efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his or her own; and (3) the merit of the
22 plaintiff’s claim. Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991).
23 Ultimately, the determination of whether to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of
24 the district court. Id.
25 Although the first two factors weigh in Plaintiff’s favor, it is unclear at this early stage
26 of litigation whether Plaintiff’s claims have any merit. Furthermore, it appears from the
27 Complaint, IFP Motion, and Request for Appointment of Counsel, that Plaintiff is wholly
28 capable of representing herself. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel
1 07CV1561 BTM(LSP)
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:07-cv-01561-BTM-LSP Document 7 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
2 07CV1561 BTM(LSP)