Jeffrey Joerger v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice

Good Law
87 F.3d 1319·1996 WL 340783·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31444
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 19, 199695-55885California432 words

Opinion

Opinion

87 F.3d 1319 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jeffrey JOERGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-55885. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 11, 1996. * Decided June 19, 1996. Before: CANBY, NOONAN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jeffrey Joerger appeals pro se interlocutorily the district court's denial of his request for appointment of counsel in his employment discrimination action alleging reprisal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1320 (9th Cir.1981), and affirm. 3 Pursuant to Title VII, a district court has the discretion to appoint counsel "in such circumstances as the court may deem just." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B). The court must…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.