Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Ali Agha appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for appointment of counsel to assist him in his Title VII action against the Secretary of the Army. We affirm.

The district court may appoint counsel for a Title VII plaintiff in such circumstances as the court deems just. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1). The court must assess (1) the plaintiff's financial condition; (2) the plaintiff's efforts to secure counsel; and (3) whether the plaintiff's claims have merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). We review the district court's refusal to appoint counsel for abuse of discretion. Id.

On appeal, Agha challenges the district court's reliance upon the bench ruling of no discrimination made by the EEOC hearing officer in determining that Agha's discrimination claims lacked merit. We need not consider whether the district court might have erred if it had relied solely on the EEOC's no discrimination finding in assessing merit for purposes of appointing counsel, see, e.g., Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir. 1977) (EEOC finding of no probable cause is highly probative but not determinative); Harris v. Walgreen's Distribution Center, 456 F.2d 588, 590 (6th Cir. 1972) (error to rely solely upon EEOC finding of no probable cause), because the district court did not do so. Rather, the court also reviewed the Army's investigation report, which concluded that the Army had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for not rehiring Agha in 1984. Agha further contends that the court based its determination on allegedly conclusory and contested findings in the Army's investigation report. The district court's order shows, however, that the court reviewed the evidence presented, including the evidence collected by the Army's investigation of Agha's claims, and exercised a "reasoned and well-informed discretion." Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1319. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel upon determining that Agha's claims lacked merit. And, a fortiori, the district court acted within its discretion in denying Agha's motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.