Pending before the Court*fn1 is Mr. Dustin H. Jones's Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. (Docket entry #19.) For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion will be granted.
Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Defendant discriminated against him in violation of Title VII.. (Docket entry #2.) On May 31, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (docket entry #14) and, on June 6, 2006, appointed Mr. Jones to represent Plaintiff. (Docket entry #16.) On July 19, 2006, Mr. Jones filed a Motion to Withdraw and Brief in Support requesting permission to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel because he believes his claims have no legal merit. (Docket entries #19 and #20.)
In his Motion, Mr. Jones claims that:
(1) he conducted a telephone interview with Plaintiff;
(2) has investigated the facts and reviewed the materials contained in the Clerk's record;
(3) is familiar with employment discrimination law; and
(4) without disclosing privileged information, believes that Plaintiff's legal position lacks merit. (Docket entry #19.)
Local Rule 83.7 provides, in pertinent part, that:
If, after interviewing the client, investigating the facts, and researching the applicable law, an appointed attorney is convinced that the party's legal position is non-meritorious, the appointed attorney may petition the Court for leave to withdraw.
Such petition to withdraw must be filed within sixty (60) days of the appointment order. If the attorney is allowed to withdraw, his/her name may be restored to the list of enrolled attorneys subject to future appointment.
After careful consideration, the Court concludes that Mr. Jones has timely stated good cause for being granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. Accordingly, his Motion to Withdraw will be granted.
One of the relevant factors in determining whether counsel should be appointed is whether there is some factual basis for the plaintiff's lawsuit. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir. 1984). In light of Mr. Jones' representations, the Court questions whether there is some factual basis for Plaintiff's lawsuit. Accordingly, the May 31, 2006 Order (docket entry #14) granting Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel will be vacated. Plaintiff must either hire an attorney or represent himself in this action.*fn2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Mr. Jones's Motion to Withdraw (docket entry ...