Kobel (ID 103958) v. Dunkle et al

Filing 22

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 16 is denied without prejudice. If it becomes apparent that appointed counsel is necessary as this case further progresses, Plaintiff may renew his motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 06/14/17. Mailed to pro se party Scott Harris Kobel by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SCOTT HARRIS KOBEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-3227-CM-DJW

DON DUNKLE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
The matter before the Court is on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 16). For
the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
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)).
Considering the above factors, 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. 16) is denied without prejudice. If it becomes apparent that appointed counsel is
necessary as this case further progresses, Plaintiff may renew his motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated June 14, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ David J. Waxse
David J. Waxse
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2