Opinion
24-CV-2360-EFM-TJJ
09-19-2024
ANDREW QUINN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SHAWNEE COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, KANSAS DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, CITY OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOPEKA RESCUE MISSION, and SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Teresa J. James, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Shawnee County Community Correction Service, the Kansas Department of Children and Families, the City of Topeka, Kansas, the Shawnee County Attorney's Office, Topeka Rescue Mission, and the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office for unspecified violations of his civil rights. This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 6), in which he asks the Court to appoint a lawyer to represent him in this case.
Compl. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff has filed the same motion in all three of his cases pending before the Court. See also Cases 24-2374 and 24-2269.
Unlike a criminal defendant, a plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Courts considering requests for the appointment of counsel in civil actions generally look to the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” The appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is a matter within the discretion of the district court. In determining whether to appoint counsel under § 1915(e)(1), the district court may consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the merits of the litigant's claims, (2) the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, (3) the litigant's ability to present his claims, and (4) the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims. Further, the party requesting the appointment of counsel must make diligent efforts to secure an attorney on his own. This District's form motion for appointment of counsel in a civil case requires a movant to list at least five attorneys contacted before filing the motion.
Castner v. Colo. Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992).
Lane v. Brewer, No. 07-3225-JAR, 2008 WL 3271921, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2008); Winston v. Simmons, No. 01-3335-KHV, 2003 WL 21418359, at *8 n.7 (D. Kan. June 18, 2003).
See Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (a district court has discretion to request an attorney to represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)).
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995).
Cline v. Seal, No. 22-CV-4009-TC-TJJ, 2022 WL 873419, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2022).
Because Congress did not provide any mechanism for compensating appointed counsel, however, Castner cautions the A[t]houghtful and prudent use of the appointment power . . . so that willing counsel may be located without the need to make coercive appointments.@ Indiscriminate appointment of volunteer counsel to undeserving claims wastes precious resources and may discourage attorneys from providing pro bono services.
Id. at 1421.
Id.
The Court has considered Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel under the above factors. The Court has already granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Plaintiff made diligent efforts to obtain counsel by showing he contacted seven attorneys. However, the Court finds the other factors weigh against appointing counsel. Plaintiff has filed six cases in this District since 2023, three of which have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.The complaint he filed in this case will likely be subject to dismissal as well. Plaintiff appears to have the ability to present his case without the aid of counsel in light of the liberal standards governing pro se litigants. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
See Order (ECF No. 5).
See Cases 23-2254; 23-2299; and 23-2335.
See Compl. (ECF No. 1).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 6) is denied.
A copy of this Order will be mailed to Plaintiff.