Haycraft v. Fidelity Management Corp.

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 12/6/2013. Mailed to pro se party E. Frances Haycraft by regular mai. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
E. FRANCES HAYCRAFT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT d/b/a )
PONDEROSA APARTMENTS,
)
)
Defendant. )
)

Case No. 13-1254-MLB-KGG

ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
In conjunction with her federal court Complaint alleging violations of her
civil rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Plaintiff E. Frances Haycraft
filed a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. (IFP Application, Doc. 3,
sealed.) The Court previously granted the IFP motion. (See Doc. 7.)
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4), which the
Court denied. (See Doc. 7.) In its previous Order, the Court determined that the
complexity of the legal issues and Plaintiff’s ability to gather and present crucial
facts did not justify the appointment of counsel. (Id., at 3-5, citing Castner v.
Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d, 1417, 1422 (10th Cir. 1992).) The Court

also noted that the factual and legal issues in this employment discrimination case
are not unusually complex. (Id., at 4, citing Kayhill v. Unified Govern. of
Wyandotte, 197 F.R.D. 454, 458 (D.Kan. 2000).)
Plaintiff has now asked the Court to reconsider that Order, contending that
her circumstances have changed, thus necessitating the appointment of counsel.
(Doc 31, at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff states that she has been diagnosed with
“celluitis [sic]” and has become homeless. While the Court sympathizes with
Plaintiff’s circumstances, this does not justify the appointment of counsel as these
factors do not make the legal issues more complex, do not render Plaintiff less
articulate, and do not render Plaintiff unable to gather and present facts crucial to
her case. Plaintiff’s motion is, therefore, DENIED.
The Court does, however, inform the parties that it is considering setting this
matter for mediation. Should that occur, the Court will be inclined to appoint
counsel for Plaintiff for the limited purpose of assisting her with, and representing
her at, the mediation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
Denial of Request for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 31) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 6th day of December, 2013.

/S KENNETH G. GALE
KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

3