Walker v. Kansas City Kansas Police Department et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel 8 is denied. Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full filing fee on or before June 4, 2017. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 05/12/17. Mailed to pro se party Walter P. Walker by regular mail. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Pages) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WALTER P. WALKER,
CASE NO. 17-3073-SAC
KANSAS CITY KANSAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff, a prisoner, proceeds pro se. On May 4, 2017, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Waxse denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
finding plaintiff has three qualifying strikes and has not made the
necessary showing to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)1.
Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. #7) and a motion to appoint
counsel (Doc. #8). In the response, plaintiff argues that he has had
no prior disqualifying strikes. However, the Court has reviewed the
cases cited by Judge Waxse and concludes that plaintiff was the
complaining party in each case and that the terminations of those cases
qualify as strikes under Section 1915(g).2 Likewise, the Court agrees
that the medical conditions of which plaintiff complains do not
suggest that he is imminent danger of serious physical harm.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action
or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
The signature pages from each complaint are attached to demonstrate the plaintiff
signed each one.
Accordingly, the Court directs plaintiff to submit the filing fee or
on before June 4, 2017.
Plaintiff also moves for the appointment of counsel. As a party
to a civil action, plaintiff has no constitutional right to appointed
counsel. See Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10 th Cir. 1988)(per
curiam). However, in its discretion, a federal court may appoint
counsel to assist a party who is unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1). A court deciding whether to appoint counsel should
consider “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
1995)(internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the motion and declines to
appoint counsel. Plaintiff’s motion appears to add a number of
unrelated arguments and references, and the Court finds no argument
or issue that warrants the appointment of counsel.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion to
appoint counsel (Doc. #8) is denied. Plaintiff remains obligated to
pay the full filing fee on or before June 4, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 12th day of May, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District 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?