Nyanjom v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration re 34 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 8/1/2013. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HAROLD M. NYANJOM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HAWKER BEECHCRAFT, INC.,
)
)
Defendant. )
)

Case No. 12-1461-JAR-KGG

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
In conjunction with his federal court Complaint alleging employment
discrimination (Doc. 2)1, Plaintiff Harold M. Nyanjom filed a Motion to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees (IFP Application, Doc. 1, sealed). The undersigned
Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff adequately established that he is entitled to
file this action without payment of fees and costs, and granted him leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10.)
Following the resolution of the bankruptcy of Defendant Hawker Beechcraft
Corp. (Doc. 12, text entry), the undersigned Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 28), finding that Plaintiff is an articulate

1

Plaintiff initially filed this matter in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. (See Doc. 2.) The matter was subsequently transferred to
the District of Kansas, after a determination that this was the proper venue.

individual, capable of presenting facts and legal argument in support of his claims.
(Doc. 34.) As such, Plaintiff did not meet the final criteria for the appointment of
counsel required by Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417,
1421 (10th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider the decision denying his request
for appointed counsel. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff’s motion contains abundant legal
authority to support his request for counsel. (See generally Doc. 41.)
Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the authority he cites is from other Circuits and/or
predates the Castner decision. Plaintiff has provided no legal authority or valid
argument for the Court to disregard the commonly accepted criteria contained in
Castner – criteria which Plaintiff does not meet. The Court is satisfied that
Plaintiff is capable of presenting facts and legal argument to represent himself in
this matter just as countless other pro se parties do in federal court litigation on any
given day in this country.
The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s situation as an individual untrained in
the law. As stated previously, however, “while an attorney might present his case
more effectively, this fact alone does not warrant appointment of counsel.” (Doc.
34, at 4.) The realities of the legal profession – and the limited availability of
willing legal professionals in this District – make it impossible for the Court to
2

provide an attorney to each of the many pro se litigants requesting appointed
counsel each year. As this Court has previously stated,
thoughtful and prudent use of the appointment power is
necessary so that willing counsel may be located without
the need to make coercive appointments. The
indiscriminate appointment of volunteer counsel to
undeserving claims will waste a precious resource and
may discourage attorneys from donating their time.
Castner, 979 F.2d at 1421.
(Doc. 34, at 2.)
Further, as a general rule, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to appointed
counsel in a civil matter – particularly an employment discrimination case he has
chosen to initiate himself. See Nelson v. Boeing Co., 446 F.3d 1118, 1120–22
(10th Cir.2006) (stating that “the only context in which courts have recognized a
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in civil litigation is in
immigration cases” and declining to recognize a right to counsel in Title VII
cases). In other words, Title VII grants litigants only a statutory right to request
appointed counsel at court expense. Id., at 1120.
The Court is aware, and sympathetic, of Plaintiff’s blindness. This does not
per se entitle him to appointment of counsel for the simple reason that the type of
assistance Plaintiff’s blindness may require does not necessitate a law degree. That
stated, the Court will, however, entertain requests from Plaintiff for assistance
3

directly relating to his blindness.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for
Reconsideration on Order on Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 41) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 1st day of August, 2013.
S/ KENNETH G . GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

4