FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISHNA REDDY, No. 13-15097
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Paul S. Grewal, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 22, 2014***
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Krishna Reddy appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
motion for appointment of counsel in her Title VII action alleging, among other
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
federal and state law claims, employment discrimination and wrongful termination.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion, Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th
Cir. 1981), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reddy’s motion for
appointment of counsel because Reddy failed to demonstrate that she made
sufficient efforts to secure counsel, that her claims have merit, and that she is
hampered by a language barrier or another significant disadvantage in being able to
pursue this action. See id. (setting forth factors for court to assess in determining
whether to appoint counsel for actions involving claims under Title VII).
As set forth in our March 29, 2013 order, the scope of this appeal is limited
to reviewing the district court’s denial of Reddy’s motion for appointment of
counsel, and we do not consider Reddy’s arguments regarding the district court’s
allegedly improper denial of her motions for disqualification and default judgment.
We reject Reddy’s contentions regarding the recusal of all “Republican
President-nominated” judges on this court; our alleged authority to review non-
appealable interlocutory orders by treating her appeal as a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651; sanctions against defendants and their counsel
for their allegedly intentional misrepresentations and bad faith litigation tactics in
2 13-15097
this action; and the reassignment of her case to a different district court judge.
Reddy’s request for an order requiring defendants to pay the filing fees we
waived for her appeal, set forth in her opening and reply briefs, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15097