been satisfactory.


4
The plaintiff's job with the city was that of an unclassified laborer.  A white CETA employee was hired on the same day as the plaintiff, given on-the-job training as a truck driver, and eventually placed permanently in this classified position.  The plaintiff had attained a higher degree of education, had experience driving trucks while in the armed services, and thus was at least as qualified for the truck driver position as was the white employee.  The district court found that, but for the discriminatory practice of the city, the plaintiff would have been trained and promoted to the same or equivalent position as the white employee.  The court also found that it would have been futile for the plaintiff to apply for aon March 4, 1983.  It also sets forth the nature and factual basis of the plaintiff's claim of discrimination by the city.


6
On June 6, 1983, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiff authority to commence an action without prepayment of fees, costs, or security, but denying his application for appointment of attorney.  Further, the order stated that the plaintiff's "application shall be treated as a complaint under Title VII ... and deemed filed this date,3 but an amended complaint, complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and suitable for service of the defendants ... shall be filed with the court within 30 days from the date hereof (unless extended by order of the court), failing which this cause shall be dismissed for want