Opinion
No. 00C6375
November 2, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit In Forma Pauperis of Plaintiff LaVal D. Inman who is appearing pro se. The Court grants the application. According to the application, Inman has been unemployed for at least one year. He has neither savings nor any other source of income. Furthermore, Inman is obligated to pay child support. These facts convince us that Inman is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
In addition, Inman appears to have stated a cause of action that is not frivolous or malicious. See id. He is suing the Postal Union to which he formerly belonged alleging that the Union failed to process his grievance and represent his disability even though the Union processed grievances for similarly situated co-workers. Inman couches this claim as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We wish to note that a theory of breach of the union's duty of fair representation may be a more appropriate vehicle. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 191 (1967) (holding that although union members have no absolute right to take their grievances to arbitration, a union may not arbitrarily ignore a grievance or treat it in a perfunctory way). Because we construe liberally Inman's pro se Complaint, however, and because he may very well have a cause of action under the ADA as well, we find that he has satisfied the pleading requirements. Also, we note that Inman met procedural requirements by obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC and filing his complaint in a timely manner within 90 days.
Inman also asks us to grant his motion for appointment of counsel. Although indigent civil rights litigants may apply to the court for appointment of counsel, such litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to be represented by counsel in federal court. See Merritt v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1983). The decision to appoint counsel lies within the district court's broad discretion. See Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992). In the case at bar, we decline to appoint counsel for Inman for several reasons. First, Inman failed to document in his application the extent of his attempts to retain counsel to represent him. Without this important information we cannot grant his request. See id. at 1072 (holding that a litigant seeking appointment of pro bono counsel must show that he has made a reasonable attempt to retain private counsel, or that he is effectively precluded from making such efforts). Furthermore, given the substance of Inman's complaint, we believe that Inman is capable of proceeding without the assistance of counsel. As a former employee, Inman can investigate the crucial facts underlying his cause of action, and the nature of his claim is not particularly complex. See Swofford v. Maxwell, 969 F.2d 547, 551 (7th Cir. 1992). We therefore deny Inman's request for appointment of counsel.