Lloyd v. Rose et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 51 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Court will appoint counsel in a subsequent order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 7/31/2017. Mailed to pro se party Todd J. Lloyd by regular mail. (ht)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TODD J. LLOYD,
Case No. 14-3137-JTM-DJW
DON WILKINS, et al.,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
The matter before the Court is on Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 50 &
51). Section 1915(e)(1) provides that the “court may request an attorney to represent any person
unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In addition to determining the financial need
of the movant, if the court determines the movant has a colorable claim, then it “should consider
the nature of the factual issues raised in the claim and the ability of the plaintiff to investigate the
crucial facts.” Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing McCarthy v.
Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th
Cir. 1981)). The Tenth Circuit has adopted several factors for determining whether appointment
of counsel is appropriate, including: “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.” Id. (citing Williams v. Messe, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir.
1991) (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir. 1981)).
After reviewing the factors used in determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court
concludes that the factors weigh in favor of appointing counsel in this case. Most heavily
weighing in Plaintiff’s favor is the fact that his claims survived a motion to dismiss, indicating
his claims have merit. (See Doc. 44.) His claims are complex enough that he may need to hire
an expert in order to be able to present his claims. For these reasons, the Court will appoint
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motions to
Appoint Counsel (Docs. 50 & 51) are granted. The Court will appoint counsel in a subsequent
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated July 31, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ David J. Waxse
David J. Waxse
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?