Manolopoulos v. Life Line Screening of America L.T.D.

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part #53 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 4/7/17. Mailed to pro se party Panagiotis Manolopoulos by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PANAGIOTIS MANOLOPOULOS, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LIFE LINE SCREENING,
)
)
Defendant. )
)

Case No. 16-1364-EFM-KGG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
NOW BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s request for the undersigned
Magistrate Judge to reconsider his request for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 53.)
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion.
In the context of Plaintiff’s prior request for counsel (Doc. 4), the Court
analyzed the four factors identified by the Tenth Circuit 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. (See Doc. 5, at 3-4, citing McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d
836, 838-39 (10th Cir. 1985) (listing factors applicable to applications under the
IFP statute); Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1421 (10th

Cir. 1992) (listing factors applicable to applications under Title VII)). The Court
found that Plaintiff established the first three factors – ability to afford counsel,
diligence in searching for counsel, and merits of the case. (Doc. 5, at 3-4.) Even
so, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion after finding that his case was not unusually
complex. In that context, the Court saw no basis to distinguish Plaintiff from the
many other untrained individuals who represent themselves pro se on various types
of claims in Courts throughout the United States on any given day. (Id., at 5.)

Since that Order was entered, the Court has set this case for a Settlement
Conference on April 27, 2017. (Doc. 66, text entry.) Under these circumstances,
the Court finds that it would be in the best interests of all parties to have Plaintiff
represented for the limited purpose of conducting the Settlement Conference. This
District allows representation for limited purposes pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.8.

The court hereby appoints Paul McCausland of Young, Bogle, McCausland,
Wells & Blanchard, P.A., who is a member of the bar of this Court, to represent
Plaintiff for the limited purpose of the Settlement Conference set for April 27,
2017, in this action. Newly-appointed counsel’s contact information is as follows:
Paul McCausland
Young, Bogle, McCausland, Wells & Blanchard, P.A.
2

100 North Main, Suite 1001
Wichita, KS 67202
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
The court requests that the above-enumerated attorney file a formal, limited entry
of appearance. The Court also directs Plaintiff and counsel to review D. Kan. Rule
83.5.8 regarding limited representation as well as D. Kan. Rules 83.5.3(e)(2) and
(f) and 83.5.3.1 regarding the reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred
by appointed counsel.
The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the above-enumerated
attorney and to Plaintiff in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s renewed motion to
appoint counsel (Doc. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as more
fully set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 7th day of April, 2017.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

3