Opinion
Cause No. 3:04-CV-074 RM.
September 15, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
Marie Bayer asks that the court reconsider its August 31, 2006 order denying her motion for appointment of counsel. Although Ms. Bayer didn't specify any one of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in her motion to reconsider, the motion was filed within ten days of the entry of the order, and so is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Britton v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 127 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1997).
A claimant can invoke Rule 59(e) to direct a court's attention to matters such as newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact. Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). While Ms. Bayer hasn't provide adequate justification for not including evidence of her efforts to secure counsel in her previous request, and so denial of her motion to reconsider would be appropriate, see Figgie Intern. Inc. v. Miller, 966 F.2d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 1992), the court also denies her request because the additional evidence presented doesn't persuade the court that counsel is needed. Ms. Bayer has been intimately involved in this litigation for more than two years and has acted vigorously and adequately on behalf of herself and her son. Trial is now set to commence in two months, and Ms. Bayer's active participation in this lawsuit and her son's education puts her is in a suitable position to investigate facts and present her case unaided by counsel. Accordingly, the court DENIES the motion to reconsider [Doc. No. 113].
SO ORDERED.