Jackson (ID 77685) v. King et al

Filing 24

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 20 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 07/12/17. Mailed to pro se party Anthony T. Jackson by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY T. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-3183-DDC-DJW

AMANDA KING, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
The matter before the Court is on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 20).
Defendants responded to the motion (Doc. 23); Plaintiff did not file a reply, and the time to do so
has passed.
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Durre v.
Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir.
1995). The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil matter lies in the discretion of the
district court. Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). “The burden is on the
applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the
appointment of counsel.” Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006)(citing Hill v.
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004). It is not enough “that having
counsel appointed would have assisted [the prisoner] in presenting his strongest possible case,
[as] the same could be said in any case.”

Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (citing Rucks v.

Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the
district court should consider “the merits of the prisoner’s claims, the nature and complexity of
the factual and legal issues, and the prisoner’s ability to investigate the facts and present his
claims.” Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979; Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115.

Considering the above factors, and the reasons set forth in Defendants’ response (Doc.
23), the Court concludes in this case that (1) it is not clear at this juncture that Plaintiff has
asserted a colorable claim; (2) the issues are not complex; and (3) Plaintiff appears capable of
adequately presenting facts and arguments. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions to
appoint counsel at this time. However, this denial is without prejudice. If it becomes apparent
that appointed counsel is necessary as this case further progresses, Plaintiff may renew his
motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Doc. 20) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint within 14
days of this Order.

Dated July 12, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ David J. Waxse
David J. Waxse
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2