Unpublished Disposition, 842 F.2d 335 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseKamal B. MAHDAVI, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 87-1854.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 1988.* Decided March 11, 1988.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Robert F. Peckham, District Judge, Presiding.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, Chief Judge, and HUG and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Kamal Mahdavi appeals the district court's order denying his request for appointment of counsel in his Title VII case. Mahdavi contends that the district court evaluated his request under an incorrect legal standard.
The district court evaluated Mahdavi's request pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1), the statute governing appointment of counsel in Title VII cases. The standards for evaluating requests for appointed counsel under these two statutes differ substantially. Compare Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981) (standards for appointment of counsel in Title VII cases) with Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (standards for appointment of counsel for indigent litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).
This case is remanded to give the district court the opportunity to review Mahdavi's request under the proper standard, as set forth in Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1318-20.
REMANDED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
