Board of Trustees of the Automotive Industries Welfare Fund, Automotive Industries Pension Fund et al v. Gentry
Filing
77
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/14/2011 ORDERING that Defendant's 71 motion to appoint counsel is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to contact Sujean Park, Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator, for the purp ose of locating forthwith an attorney admitted to practice in this court who is willing to accept the appointment. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to defendant an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit. Within 30 days of receipt of the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit, defendant shall complete and file that application. (cc Sujean Park)(Duong, D)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES
WELFARE FUND, AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRIES PENSION FUND;
JIM BENO, TRUSTEE,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiffs,
No. 2:10-cv-03411 FCD KJN PS
v.
NORMAN GENTRY, also known as
NORM GENTRY, individually and
doing business as NORM’S
ELECTRICAL SUPPLY,
17
Defendant.
18
ORDER
/
Presently before the court is defendant’s motion to appoint counsel.1 (Dkt.
19
20
No. 71.) For the reasons that follow, the undersigned grants defendant’s motion. The
21
undersigned further orders defendant to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in order
22
to substantiate his inability to retain and pay an attorney.
23
On June 9, 2011, the undersigned conducted a status (pretrial scheduling)
24
25
26
1
This action proceeds before the undersigned as a result of the parties’ voluntary consent
to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. Nos. 22, 45, 48, 67). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; E. Dist. Local Rule 301.
1
1
conference in this action, which involves claims implicating the National Labor Relations Act of
2
1947 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (Minutes, June 9, 2011, Dkt.
3
No. 75; see also First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 3.) Plaintiffs appeared through counsel. Defendant
4
is proceeding without counsel and appeared on his own behalf. Defendant’s non-attorney son,
5
Bruce Gentry, was also seated at counsel’s table and assisted defendant during the scheduling
6
conference. At the scheduling conference, defendant indicated his intent to file a Chapter 7
7
bankruptcy petition that same day. (See Minute Order, June 9, 2011, Dkt. No. 76.)
8
Just prior to the scheduling conference, defendant filed his motion to appoint
9
counsel. Considering the contents of the motion to appoint counsel and defendant’s and his
10
son’s remarks at the scheduling conference, defendant represents that he is 78 years old, has
11
some difficulty hearing, is living on social security benefits, and has no money to pay for an
12
attorney. Most significantly, defendant and his son stated that defendant can read very little and
13
cannot write at all. Apparently, until recently defendant was receiving assistance in this litigation
14
from a gentleman named Thomas Burton, but Mr. Burton recently passed away. Defendant’s son
15
has been assisting defendant to read court papers and prepare some documents, but defendant’s
16
son expressed a lack of comfort with reading and interpreting litigation-related documents.
17
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action. See Lassiter
18
v. Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25-26 (1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a
19
“court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” However, such
20
an appointment may be made only on a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v.
21
Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1282 (2010); accord Terrell v.
22
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “When determining whether ‘exceptional
23
circumstances’ exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the
24
ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
25
involved.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Neither of these
26
considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id.
2
1
Here, exceptional circumstances exist such that counsel should be appointed for
2
defendant. As to the likelihood that defendant will be successful in this action, defendant’s
3
liability is not certain. This case is at the pleading stage, and the record before the court does not
4
suggest that one party is more likely to prevail than the other. In regards to defendant’s ability to
5
articulate his claims as a pro se party, the court is very concerned that based on defendant’s
6
representations about his ability to read and write, defendant will largely be unable to articulate
7
his defenses or otherwise participate in this litigation in a meaningful way. Accordingly, the
8
undersigned grants defendant’s motion to appoint counsel.
9
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
1.
Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 71) is granted.
11
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to contact Sujean Park, Alternative Dispute
12
Resolution Coordinator, for the purpose of locating forthwith an attorney admitted to practice in
13
this court who is willing to accept the appointment.
14
15
3.
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit.
16
17
4.
Within 30 days of receipt of the Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit, defendant shall complete and file that application.2
18
19
The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to defendant an Application to
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 14, 2011
20
21
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
2
Hopefully, defendant’s son can assist defendant to complete the application.
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
