Cardwell v. United States Department of Education, Secretary of et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel. This Order is a duplicate of the Report and Recommendation regarding IFP status, as that Order also contains the Court's ruling on the motion to appoint. Only 1 copy of the Order (which relates to both motions) need be mailed to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 1/24/2013. Mailed to pro se party Monte Cardwell by certified mail. (df)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MONTE VAUNE CARDWELL,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ARNE DUNCAN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
)
Case No. 12-1475-KHV-KGG
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ON
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND
ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
In conjunction with his federal court Complaint alleging a violation of his
civil rights resulting from the denial of his request for discharging of his federal
student loans, Plaintiff Monte Cardwell has filed a Motion to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees (IFP Application, Doc. 3, sealed), with an accompanying
Affidavit of Financial Status (Doc. 3-1). He also has filed a Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 4.) Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motions, as well
as his Complaint (Doc. 1), the Court is prepared to rule.
I.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize commencement of
an action without prepayment of fees, costs, etc., by a person who lacks financial
means. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In so doing, the court considers the affidavit of
financial status included with the application. See id.
There is a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis
when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those
who can afford to pay. See generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir.
1987). In construing the application and affidavit, courts generally seek to
compare an applicant’s monthly expenses to monthly income. See Patillo v. N.
Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D.Kan. Apr. 15,
2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D.Kan.
July 17, 2000) (denying motion because “Plaintiff is employed, with monthly
income exceeding her monthly expenses by approximately $600.00”).
In his supporting financial affidavit, Plaintiff indicates he is 61-years-old
and divorced with no dependents. (Doc. 3-1, at 1, 2.) Although he lists Social
Security Disability as his employer, the Court surmises from other information
contained in his affidavit that Plaintiff receives significant disability payments
from Social Security rather than a monthly wage. (Id., at 2, 5.)
Plaintiff does not own a home, but pays a small amount in rent each month.
(Id., at 3, 5.) He enumerates only 3 monthly expenses – groceries, rent, and
medicine – all of which are reasonable. (Id., at 5-6.) He owns a modest vehicle
2
outright. (Id., at 4.) (Id.) He has previously filed for bankruptcy. He indicates a
negative balance of cash on hand. (Id., at 4.)
Considering all of the information contained in the financial affidavit,
Plaintiff has not established that his access to the Courts would otherwise be
seriously impaired if he is not granted IFP status. His monthly income from Social
Security exceeds his monthly expenses by over a thousand dollars. Plaintiff is not
in the type of financial situation for which the IFP status was created. Under these
circumstances, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s
motion for IFP status be DENIED.1
II.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
The Tenth Circuit has identified four factors to be considered when a court is
deciding whether to appoint counsel for an individual: (1) plaintiff’s ability to
afford counsel, (2) plaintiff’s diligence in searching for counsel, (3) the merits of
plaintiff’s case, and (4) plaintiff’s capacity to prepare and present the case without
the aid of counsel. McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838-39 (10th Cir. 1985)
(listing factors applicable to applications under the IFP statute); Castner v.
1
A United States Magistrate Judge, on a plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, should issue a report and recommendation as to whether the plaintiff is entitled
to IFP status, rather than denying motion outright, since denial would be the functional
equivalent of involuntary dismissal. Lister v. Department of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309,
1311-12 (10th Cir. 2005).
3
Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1421 (10th Cir. 1992) (listing
factors applicable to applications under Title VII). 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.
The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff diligently searched for counsel. (See
Doc. 4.) Although the Court does not recommend that Plaintiff be granted IFP
status, as discussed in § I, above, the Court does not necessarily find that Plaintiff
could afford counsel. As for the third Castner factor, the merits of Plaintiff’s
claims, the Court sees no specific concerns on the face of Plaintiff’s federal court
Complaint. (Doc. 1.)
In considering the final Castner factor – Plaintiff’s capacity to represent
himself – the Court must look to the complexity of the legal issues and Plaintiff’s
ability to gather and present crucial facts. 979 F.2d at 1422. The Court notes that
the factual and legal issues in this case are not unusually complex. Cf. Kayhill v.
Unified Govern. of Wyandotte, 197 F.R.D. 454, 458 (D.Kan. 2000) (finding that
the “factual and legal issues” in a case involving a former employee’s allegations
of race, religion, sex, national origin, and disability discrimination were “not
4
complex”).
The Court sees no basis to distinguish Plaintiff from the many other
untrained individuals who represent themselves pro se in Courts throughout the
United States on any given day. To the contrary, Plaintiff has shown his ability to
represent himself through the student loan discharge hearing process. (See
generally, Doc. 1.) Further, although Plaintiff is not trained as an attorney, and
while an attorney might present his case more effectively, this fact alone does not
warrant appointment of counsel.
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff appears to be an articulate individual
with the ability to gather and present facts crucial to his case. As such, his Motion
to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED to the District Court that
Plaintiff’s motion for IFP status (Doc. 3, sealed) be DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
4) is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a copy of the recommendation shall
be sent to Plaintiff via certified mail. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1),
5
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and D.Kan. Rule 72.1.4, Plaintiff shall have 14 (fourteen) days
after service of a copy of these proposed findings and recommendations to serve
and file with the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case, his written objections to
the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendations of the undersigned
Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s failure to file such written, specific objections within
the 14-day period will bar appellate review of the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the recommended disposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 24th day of January, 2013.
/S KENNETH G. GALE
KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?