Albert R. Gonzalez v. Paul N. Carlin, Postmaster General, and United States Postal Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the determination of the EEOC is “highly probative” in deciding whether to appoint counsel in a subsequent judicial proceeding
• holding that “the ‘exceptional circumstances’ standard for appointing counsel in pauper cases is not interchangeable with the standard for analyzing the need for appointed counsel in Title VII cases”
• finding district court erred by importing § 1915 standard for Title VII plaintiff with no record of proceeding IFP
• affirming the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s request for counsel in part because the plaintiff was employed and had a “steady stream of income”
• finding that no single factor is conclusive
• “[T]he decision whether to appoint counsel rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).