Opinion
NO.3-08-CV-1398-D.
August 19, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Janice Alexander has filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this race discrimination and retaliation case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. There is no automatic right to the appointment of counsel in an employment discrimination suit. Caston v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977). Rather, the decision is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. The court must consider: (1) the merits of the claim; (2) efforts taken to obtain a lawyer; and (3) the financial ability of plaintiff to retain counsel. See Gonzales v. Carlin, 907 F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1990); Caston, 556 F.2d at 1309. No single factor is conclusive. Gonzales, 907 F.2d at 580.
Prior to filing suit, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The agency investigated the charge and was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes." (Plf Compl., Attch.). Such a determination is "highly probative" in deciding whether to appoint counsel in a subsequent judicial proceeding. See Gonzales, 907 F.2d at 580; Caston, 556 F.2d at 1309. Although plaintiff lacks the financial resources to hire a lawyer, that factor alone does not warrant the appointment of counsel.
For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #4] is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may reurge her motion if this case survives dismissal after dispositive motions are decided.
SO ORDERED.