Owen v. District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas et al
ORDER granting 3 and 9 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 4 and 10 Motions to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 6/9/17. Mailed to pro se party Teresa Ann Owen by certified mail - Certified Tracking Number: 7012 3050 0001 1190 3269. (sj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TERESA ANN OWEN,
DISTRICT COURT OF SEDGWICK
COUNTY, 18th JUDICIAL DISTRICT, et al.,
Case No. 17-1036-JTM-GEB
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Teresa Ann Owen’s Motion and
Amended Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (ECF Nos. 3, 9), and her
Motion and Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF Nos. 4, 10). For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiff’s Motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3, 9) are
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 4, 10) are
Motions to Proceed Without Payment of Fees
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court has the discretion1 to authorize the filing of
a civil case “without prepayment of fees or security thereof, by a person who submits an
affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security thereof.”
“Proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case ‘is a privilege, not a right—fundamental or
Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Nw. Sch., No. 00-2499, 2000 WL 1909625, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 26,
2000) (citing Cabrera v. Horgas, 173 F.3d 863, at *1 (10th Cir. April 23, 1999)).
otherwise.’”2 After careful review of Plaintiff’s attached affidavit of financial resources
(ECF Nos. 3-1 and 9-1, sealed), and the comparison of her monthly income to her
monthly expenses, the Court finds she is financially unable to pay the filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed without
Prepayment of Fees (ECF Nos. 3 and 9) are GRANTED. Although service of process
would normally be undertaken by the clerk of court under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(c)(3), the clerk is directed to stay service of process pending the District Court’s
review of the Report and Recommendation filed simultaneously herein (ECF No. 12).3
Motions for Appointment of Counsel
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil action.4 An evaluation of
whether to appoint counsel requires consideration of those factors discussed by the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision,5 including: (1) the
plaintiff’s ability to afford counsel, (2) the plaintiff’s diligence in searching for counsel,
(3) the merits of the plaintiff’s case, and (4) the plaintiff’s capacity to prepare and present
the case without the aid of counsel. Additionally, as in all federal cases, the law requires
the plaintiff to state a viable claim for relief and the court must have subject matter
Id. (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)).
See Webb v. Vratil, No. 12-2588-EFM-GLR, ECF No. 7 (D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2012) (withholding
service of process pending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)).
See Sandle v. Principi, 201 F. App'x 579, 582 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Castner v. Colo. Springs
Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992) (Title VII case); Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d
543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989) (civil case)).
979 F.2d 1417, 1420-21 (10th Cir. 1992).
jurisdiction over that claim. In consideration thereof, thoughtful and prudent care in
appointing representation is necessary so that willing counsel may be located.6
After careful consideration, the Court declines to appoint counsel to represent
Plaintiff. Plaintiff has satisfied the first prong of the Castner analysis—her inability to
afford counsel—through the financial affidavits provided with her motions to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3-1 and 9-1, sealed). Additionally, she fulfilled the second
prong of the analysis—diligence in searching for counsel—by producing the names of
more than five attorneys whom she contacted about the case, along with a detailed
description of her efforts to obtain representation.
However, despite meeting these
requirements, the Court finds she cannot meet the third prong of analysis, as the Court
has serious concerns regarding its ability to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims. Simultaneously
with this order, the Court recommends this case be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (ECF No. 12) due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Under the
circumstances, the request for appointment of counsel shall be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of
Counsel (ECF Nos. 4 and 10) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 9th day of June 2017.
s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
United States Magistrate Judge
Id. at 1421.
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?