Jeffrey Joerger, Petitioner-appellant, v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, United States Department Ofjustice, Respondent-appellee, 87 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Jeffrey Joerger appeals pro se interlocutorily the district court's denial of his request for appointment of counsel in his employment discrimination action alleging reprisal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1320 (9th Cir. 1981), and affirm.

Pursuant to Title VII, a district court has the discretion to appoint counsel "in such circumstances as the court may deem just." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1) (B). The court must evaluate: (1) whether the plaintiff demonstrates an inability to pay for private counsel; (2) plaintiff's efforts to secure counsel; and (3) whether the claims presented have merit. See Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1318. We review the district court's denial of a request for appointment of counsel for abuse of discretion. See id. We may affirm an unexplained denial of a request for appointment of counsel where the reasons are clear from the record. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982).

Here, the district court did not articulate its reasons for denying Joerger's request for appointment of counsel.¹  Because our review of Joerger's complaint and the excerpts of record convinces us that Joerger's claims lack merit, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by denying Joerger's request for appointment of counsel. See Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1318.

AFFIRMED.