Hall v. State Farm Insurance et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 3/15/2018. Mailed to pro se party Rosemary Hall by regular mail. (ydm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ROSEMARY HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-2491-CM-GLR

STATE FARM INSURANCE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Rosemary Hall renews her request for appointment of counsel (ECF 21). This
Court previously denied her first request for appointment of counsel.1 Because Plaintiff has not
provided any legal basis for appointment of counsel, the motion is denied.
In its original denial of Plaintiff’s request for counsel, the Court discussed the factors the
Tenth Circuit has adopted for determining whether appointment of counsel is appropriate. Those
factors include “the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the
claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by
the claims.”2 At that time, the Court concluded: “(1) It is not clear at this juncture that Plaintiff
has a colorable claim. (2) The issues are not complex. (3) Plaintiff appears capable of
adequately presenting facts and arguments.”3 The Court also noted that “[i]f it becomes apparent
that appointed counsel is necessary as this case progresses, Plaintiff may renew her motion.”4

1

ECF 6.
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir.
1981)).
3
ECF 6 at 2.
4
Id.
2

“In general, there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case.”5
The Court has broad discretion when deciding whether to request an attorney to represent a party
proceeding in forma pauperis.6 In her renewed motion, Plaintiff does not provide any
information that changes the Court’s previous conclusions. She has not affirmatively shown that
she asserts a meritorious claim, and her complaint provides an insufficient basis for the Court to
appoint counsel at this time.7 Her case appears to be for insurance benefits for injuries she
apparently claims from an automobile accident. The Court finds that this issue is not complex.
Finally, Plaintiff continues to appear capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments.
Additionally, Plaintiff has shown no effort to find an attorney to represent her on a
contingent-fee basis. “To obtain appointment of counsel, a party must make diligent efforts to
secure counsel. This typically requires the party to meet with and discuss the case with at least
five attorneys.”8 Here, it does not appear Plaintiff has met with any attorneys.
Finally, Defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss, both of which are still
pending.9 A court may decide to postpone the decision to appoint counsel until after the
resolution of a dispositive motion “as a means of weeding out frivolous or unmeritorious
cases.”10 At this time, based on the factors for appointment of counsel and the timing of
Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion to Assign
Legal Representation to Plaintiff (ECF 21) is denied without prejudice.

5

Lewis v. Frontier AG, Inc., No. 14-2010-JTM-GLR, 2014 WL 644970, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 19, 2014) (citing
Nelson v. Boeing Co., 446 F.3d 1118, 1120–22 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that “the only context in which courts have
recognized a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in civil litigation is in immigration cases.”)).
6
Id. (citing Pinson v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 316 F. App’x 744, 749 (10th Cir. 2009)).
7
Id. at *2.
8
Id. (citing Jeannin v. Ford Motor Co., No. 09-2287-JWL-DJW, 2009 WL 1657544, at *1 & n. 10 (D. Kan. June
12, 2009)).
9
See ECF 10, ECF 13.
10
Lewis, 2014 WL 644970, at *2–3 (citing Ficken v. Alvarez, 146 F.3d 978, 981 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated March 15, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ Gerald L. Rushfelt
Gerald L. Rushfelt
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3