Quinn v. Austin

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON — 8 — AT SEATTLE — 9 — 10 DION QUINN, CASE NO. C23-0665JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. — 12 — LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, — 13 — Defendant. — 14 — 15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Dion Quinn’s motion for appointment of 16 counsel. (Mot. (Dkt. # 4-1).) Mr. Quinn filed this action against Defendant Lloyd J. 17 Austin, III on May 6, 2023. (Prop. Compl. (Dkt. # 1); Compl. (Dkt. # 4).) He brings 18 claims for employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights 19 Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 20 // 21 // 22 // — 1 — 29 U.S.C. § 621 , et seq. (See Compl. at 3-6; see also id. at 10-38 (describing the 2 underlying facts).1) 3 This District has implemented a plan for court-appointed representation of civil 4 rights litigants. See General Order No. 16-20 (Dec. 8, 2020). The District’s pro bono 5 plan requires a pro se plaintiff in a non-prisoner civil rights action to attach, to their 6 motion for appointment of counsel, (1) a financial affidavit/declaration and (2) an 7 affidavit/declaration “stating the party’s efforts to obtain counsel by means other than 8 appointment and indicating any prior pro bono appointments of counsel to represent the 9 party in cases brought in this [c]ourt.” Id., Section 3(a). The plan currently in effect 10 requires the court to then assess a plaintiff’s case before forwarding it to a pro bono 11 screening committee for further review and a possible appointment of pro bono counsel. 12 See id., Section 3(c). The court assesses the plaintiff’s case to determine that it is not 13 frivolous and that the plaintiff is financially eligible. Id.; see also Bradshaw vs. 14 Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating that in reviewing 15 a request for appointment of counsel in a Title VII case, the court must assess (1) the 16 party’s financial resources, (2) the efforts they already made to secure counsel, and 17 (3) whether their claim has merit). 18 Mr. Quinn did not attach a financial affidavit/declaration describing his financial 19 resources to his motion. (See generally Mot.; Dkt.) Accordingly, the court is unable to 20 assess whether Mr. Quinn is financially eligible for appointment of counsel. See General — 21 — 1 Mr. Quinn also suggests that he has claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242. (See — 22 — Compl. at 3.) 1 Order No. 16-20, Section 3(a), (c). As such, the court DEFERS ruling on Mr. Quinn’s 2 motion for appointment of counsel and ORDERS Mr. Quinn to file a financial 3 affidavit/declaration describing his financial resources2 by no later than June 26, 2023. 4 If Mr. Quinn fails to file a financial affidavit/declaration by that date, the court will deny 5 his motion for appointment of counsel. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to note Mr. 6 Quinn’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 4-1) for June 26, 2023. 7 Dated this 7th day of June, 2023. — 8 — A — 9 — 10 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — 2 In the financial affidavit/declaration, Mr. Dion should provide financial information similar to the financial information requested in the District’s declaration and application to — 21 — proceed in forma pauperis. See Declaration and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, W.D. Wash., https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/IFPApplication.pdf (last visited — 22 — June 7, 2023).