Opinion
Case No.: 3:07cv525/MCR/EMT.
April 7, 2008
ORDER
This cause is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 21). Plaintiff requests that this court reconsider the order issued on March 27, 2008, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Docs. 15, 17). The court denied the motion because the court does not view the facts and legal issues involved in this Title VII case as exceptionally complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner (Doc. 17). Plaintiff contends she is entitled to appointment of counsel because her claims of employment discrimination are complex, she does not have legal knowledge or expertise to address the merits of her claims, and Defendant will be represented by counsel ( see Doc. 21). Plaintiff additionally states that she attempted to obtain counsel by contacting several attorneys but was unsuccessful — one attorney required a retainer that she could not afford, another did not take cases on contingency, and another did not take employment discrimination cases ( see id., attachment).
Plaintiff has failed to show that the order issued March 27, 2008 was clearly erroneous or contrary to law; therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied. Plaintiff is advised that she may obtain review of an order of this court on any pretrial matter by filing a motion for reconsideration with the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), in which she must show that this court's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 21) is DENIED.