Jacque Dias Schultz v. Mule Creek State Prison California Department of Corrections

95 F.3d 1158 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jacque Dias SCHULTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON; California Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-16117. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 12, 1996. * Decided Aug. 19, 1996. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jacque Dias Schultz appeals pro se the district court's order denying her third request for appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (1994) in her Title VII employment discrimination action against defendants alleging workplace harassment and failure to promote. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1305-06 (9th Cir.1981), and we affirm. 3 We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision denying appointment of counsel under section 2000e-5(f)(1). See Johnson v. United States Dep't of Treasury,…