LAKESHIA WILLIAMS v. ENTERGY SERVICES LLC ET AL (2024)

ORDER

Before the Court is the Application Under Section 706(f) of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (the “Application”), filed by Plaintiff Lakeshia Williams (“Ms. Williams”).¹ Ms. Williams seeks appoint of an attorney and authority to bring this suit without prepayment of fees, costs or security via the form Application. As she has failed to show that appointment of counsel is warranted at this time and has failed to show that she is unable to bring this suit without prepayment of the associated costs, Ms. Williams' Application will be denied in all respects.

Ms. Williams filed her Complaint in this case on December 5, 2023.² She alleges race, gender and disability discrimination and retaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as well as claims under Louisiana state law, related to her employment at Entergy Services LLC.

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

While she checked the box requesting to proceed with prepayment of fees, costs or security (a/k/a IFP) on the Application, Ms. Williams paid the required initial partial filing fee of $405.00 when she filed her Complaint. An affidavit in support of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient if it states that, due to poverty, one cannot afford to pay the costs of legal representation and still provide for herself and her dependents.³ While one need not be absolutely destitute to qualify for IFP status, such benefit is only allowed when a movant cannot give such costs and remain able to provide for herself and her dependents.⁴

Ms. Williams has not established entitlement to proceed in this matter IFP. First, Ms. Williams has not verified that, due to poverty, she is unable to pay the costs associated with this lawsuit and still provide for herself and any dependents.⁵ As noted above, she paid the required filing fee before she sought IFP status. The only additional costs at this time might be those associated with service of process of the Complaint and summonses. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2), any person over the age of 18 years old who is not a party to the litigation may serve a summons and Complaint. Ms. Williams has not provided any information regarding the costs of service, if any, to suggest that IFP status is warranted for this reason. Additionally, the Application states that Ms. Williams is currently employed, earning over $3,000 per week,⁶ and that, in the past twelve months, she has earned income from various sources of over $150,000.⁷ She also has additional assets, including a primary residence, valued at over $300,000, with a mortgage of only $150,000, suggesting that she has significant equity as well. Further, although Ms. Williams lists debts totaling of $281,000 (including her mortgage), there is no indication as to how much she pays each month on these obligations. This is particularly relevant given that she is currently employed and earning over $12,000 a month.

Accordingly, the Application will be denied in so far as it seeks authority to proceed IFP.⁸

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

In determining whether counsel should be appointed for a plaintiff bringing claims under Title VII, the court should consider the following factors:

1) Whether the complainant has the financial ability to retain counsel;

2) Whether the complainant has made a diligent effort to retain counsel; and

3) Whether the complainant has a meritorious claim.9

Based on the information provided, Ms. Williams has not shown that appointment of counsel is warranted. As to financial ability to pay, Ms. Williams has been denied IFP status in this case based, in large part, on her significant current income and the stated value of her assets. Additionally, many attorneys will agree to representation on a contingency or other modified payment basis. As to efforts to retain counsel, while Ms. Williams has submitted information that she is no longer being represented by the attorney who was representing her when she filed her charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), lists two other attorneys by name that she says declined to represent her, and states that four other attorneys have declined to represent her, this is likely not enough to establish a diligent effort to retain counsel given the number of attorneys in this geographic area specializing in the types of claims in this suit. Finally, there is not sufficient information provided to determine whether Ms. Williams has a meritorious claim. While she has provided a detailed narrative in support of her claims, the EEOC did not make a determination as to whether Ms. Williams's claims have merit despite appearing to take over a year to investigate.¹⁰

Because Ms. Williams has not made the required showing to warrant the relief requested, IT IS ORDERED that Application Under Section 706(f) of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), filed by Plaintiff Lakeshia Williams,¹¹ is DENIED in all respects.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 29, 2023.

FOOTNOTES

1.   R. Doc. 2.

2.   R. Doc. 1.

3.   See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948).

4.   Id. at 339; see also, Ryan v. Ramsey, 936 F.Supp. 417, 425 (S.D. Tex. 1996).

5.   Ms. Williams states that she is the sole provider for her 14-year-old child. R. Doc. 2, ¶ G.

6.   R. Doc. 2, ¶ B

7.   R. Doc. 2, ¶ C.

8.   Because IFP status is denied, Ms. Williams will be responsible for timely effecting service of process on all defendants and filing adequate service information into the record as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

9.   Gonzalez v. Carlin, 907 F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1990), citing Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977).

10.   R. Doc. 1-2. Ms. Williams' Charge of Discrimination was filed on August 17, 2022 and the Determination and Notice of Rights was issued by the EEOC on September 7, 2023. The EEOC also did not make a determination that Ms. Williams' claims lacked merit.

11.   R. Doc. 2.

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE