Baker et al v. DesLauriers et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 74 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on March 2, 2017. Mailed to pro se party by regular mail. (Gale, Kenneth)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RONALD BAKER, et al,
AUSTIN DESLAURIERS, et al,
Case No. 14-1356-JTM-KGG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Before the Court is the motion of plaintiff David Thayer for appointment of counsel (Doc.
74). This is actually a motion to appoint replacement counsel, after plaintiff Thayer moved for
and was granted leave to separate from the other plaintiffs in this case and the attorneys
appointed to represent all plaintiffs, including him (Doc.67, 69).
This purported class action was filed pro se by several named plaintiffs, including the
movant. This Court previously found that the plaintiff, like the other named plaintiffs in this
case, should be appointed counsel (Doc. 36). Thereafter, the Court appointed volunteer counsel
to represent all plaintiffs in this case (Doc. 50). Able counsel from two different law firms were
appointed. Appointed plaintiffs counsel filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs
and the purported class (Doc. 62). Mr. Thayer then filed a motion to separate from the other
plaintiffs and appointed counsel, expressing the belief that appointed counsel did not “have our
best interests in mind.” (Doc. 67). He expressed a preference to continue under the original
Complaint. This Court granted that motion, ruling that the original Complaint filed pro se by the
plaintiffs would be active as to Mr. Thayer and that he could proceed to represent himself pro se
(Doc. 69). Since this ruling Mr. Thayer has filed a separate motion for class certification (Doc.
73) evidencing some understanding of the procedures in this case.
The removal of previously-appointed counsel was not granted because of any deficiencies
or malfeasance in their representation of Mr. Thayer, or because of any legal or ethical conflict of
interest. Rather, the Court deferred to the preference of Mr. Thayer expressed in his motion,
based upon his judgment, that counsel were not representing his best interests. The Court has
discretion to appoint counsel who volunteer to represent indigent plaintiffs under 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(1). However, this discretion is not wisely exercised in a case where the movant, having
been appointed counsel, is asking the Court to locate replacement counsel who agree with his
legal strategic and tactical decisions.
The Motion to Appoint counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ KENNETH G. GALE
Kenneth G. Gale
United States Magistrate 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?