Camick v. Holladay et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Memorandum and Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 9/14/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (sj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LESLIE LYLE CAMICK,
HARRY R. HOLLADAY, ESQ., et al.,
Case No. 17-1110-EFM-GEB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointed Counsel (ECF
No. 29). For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed this case, acting pro se and seeking to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee.
He claims defendant Evelyn Wattley, and her
company, KiaTraxx L.L.C., unlawfully acquired his confidential and proprietary trade secret
information. He further contends this misappropriation of his intellectual property caused
him severe economic and other damages.
He seeks not only monetary damages but
injunctive relief to protect his proprietary interests. Plaintiff further claims defendant Harry
R. Holladay, attorney to defendant Wattley during the timeframe at issue, wrongfully
advised her to take the actions which harmed Plaintiff. (see Complaint, ECF No. 1, and
Supplement, ECF No. 7).
On July 11, 2017, the Court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Order,
ECF NO. 8), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the clerk’s office undertook the task of
serving Defendants with the summons and Complaint, utilizing the address information
provided by Plaintiff.1
On July 25, 2017, returns of service were filed for all three
defendants (see ECF Nos. 9-12).
KiaTraxx and Ms. Wattley responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint by filing a joint
motion to dismiss (Motion, ECF No. 14). However, defendant Holladay is involved in a
dispute with Plaintiff over the sufficiency of service on him, and the issue of whether a
clerk’s entry of default (ECF No. 23) entered against Holladay should be set aside (see
Motions, ECF Nos. 25, 26 and related briefing). Those issues are currently pending before
U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 29)
Plaintiff now asks the Court to appoint him counsel for the purpose of assisting him
in defending Holladay’s claim regarding insufficient service (Motion, ECF No. 29). He
acknowledges he is not entitled to counsel as a matter of right, but contends that the
appointment of counsel to assist him regarding solely the issue of Holladay’s alleged
insufficient service and disputed default would further the interests of justice. Although the
motion is unopposed by Defendants, the Court reviews the motion on its merits.
It is a pro se Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide accurate service information to the clerk’s office
for service on Defendants. Although the clerk’s office, through the U.S. Marshals Service, will
undertake physical service of process, Plaintiff is responsible for naming the persons and providing
the addresses for such service.
As Plaintiff acknowledges in his Motion, although a criminal defendant has a
constitutional right to representation by an attorney, there is no similar constitutional right to
counsel in a civil action such as this one.2 Some statutes, however, provide the court with
discretion to appoint counsel for a civil litigant. For example, both the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1), provide discretionary authority for appointing counsel “in such
circumstances as the court may deem just.”3 If a plaintiff sues under a statute which
provides no authority for appointment of counsel, general authority for requesting counsel
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) may govern.4
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), in its discretion, the “court may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel.”5 When evaluating whether to appoint
counsel, the court considers multiple factors, including (1) the merits of the litigant’s claims,
(2) the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, (3) the litigant’s ability to present his
claims, and (4) the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.6 The court also
Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989).
Rand v. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., No. 11-4136-KHV-GLR, 2012 WL 1154509, at *2
(D. Kan. Apr. 5, 2012) (discussing appointment of counsel under the ADA); Nelson v. Boeing Co.,
446 F.3d 1118, 1120 (10th Cir. 2006) (discussing appointment of counsel under Title VII, and
noting “Title VII grants litigants a statutory right to request appointed counsel at court expense”).
Rand, 2012 WL 1154509, at *2.
Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (a district “court has discretion to
request an attorney to represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis” under 28 U.S.C. §
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). See also Castner v. Colorado Springs
Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420-21 (10th Cir. 1992) (applying similar factors in the context of a
request for counsel in an employment discrimination case under 42 U.S.C. 2000(e)–5 and 28 U.S.C.
considers the movant’s diligence in attempting to secure counsel.7 Thoughtful and prudent
care in appointing representation is necessary so that willing counsel may be located.8 The
court has an obligation not to make indiscriminate appointments on every occasion that a
plaintiff seeks court-ordered counsel,9 particularly in light of the expanding federal court
dockets, increased filings by pro se parties, and decreasing number of attorneys willing to
The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is unable to afford counsel, as evidenced in his
financial affidavits (ECF Nos. 2, 7) and the earlier Order permitting him to proceed in forma
pauperis (Order, ECF No. 8). Therefore, the Court possesses the authority under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) to request an attorney to assist him, after evaluating the factors outlined above.
After careful consideration, however, the Court declines to appoint counsel for the
following reasons. First, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence in seeking counsel on his
own, as required by both the Tenth Circuit and this Court. “Although not required to
‘exhaust the legal directory,’ a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has made a
‘reasonably diligent effort under the circumstances to obtain counsel.’”11 In the District of
Kansas, a party is typically required to first contact at least five attorneys to determine
Adkins v. Kansas Comm'n on Judicial Qualifications, No. 11-4109-SAC-KGS, 2011 WL
13133967, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 22, 2011) (citing Castner, 979 F.2d at 1420).
Castner, 979 F.2d at 1421.
Wheeler v. Wichita Police Dept., No. 97-1076-FGT, 1997 WL 109694, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 27,
See Sause v. Louisburg Police Dept., No. 15-9633-JAR-TJJ, ECF No. 16 (D. Kan. Jan. 6, 2016).
Castner, 979 F.2d at 1422 (quoting Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th
Cir. 1977) and Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y, 662 F.2d 1301, 1319 (9th Cir. 1981)).
whether they would represent him, before filing a motion seeking appointed counsel.12
Plaintiff’s motion lacks any indication that he sought out any potential attorneys for this
case (ECF No. 29).
Second, the Court is unable to fully evaluate the merits of Plaintiff’s claims at this
early stage of the case, and his claims do not appear complex. More importantly, Plaintiff
has demonstrated no reason why he is unable to adequately present the case on his own. His
written pleadings and motions appear well-formulated and coherent, and he has met each
deadline required of him, including briefing and responding to the pending dispositive
motions. He appeared in a telephone conference with the undersigned U.S. Magistrate
Judge (see Order, ECF No. 31) and articulately and appropriately engaged with both this
Court and opposing counsel. Despite the current issues surrounding the service of defendant
Holladay, he seems to have a functional grasp of Court procedures. Although he professes
some understandable confusion, as a pro se litigant, regarding the service issues surrounding
defendant Holladay, he is expected to be familiar with the federal and local rules despite his
pro se status.13 This District’s pro se resources, and specifically the manual entitled “Filing
http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/self-representation/, provide very clear instructions regarding
service of process and the applicable state and federal rules. Plaintiff is encouraged to
Adkins, 2011 WL 13133967, at *1 (citing Sommerville v. Republic Cnty. Hosp., No. 10-4119KHV-DJW, 2010 WL 5172995, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 14, 2010)).
Keeler v. Aramark, 418 F. App'x 787, 791 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting, “even pro se litigants are
expected to ‘follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.’”) (quoting Kay v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (other internal quotation omitted)).
consult this resource, as well as the other numerous resources available to pro se litigants,
on the District’s website.
The Court recognizes that “its perception of the merits and other factors relevant to
the issue of appointment of counsel may vary”14 as the case progresses. Although “a court
may well appoint counsel at the outset of a case, it might also decide to postpone the
decision—for example, until after resolution of dispositive motions—in order to give itself
both more time and more information to evaluate the plaintiff’s capabilities and the merits
of the case.”15 Postponing a decision to appoint counsel allows the Court to gain more
information about both the merits of the claims and Plaintiff’s continuing ability to present
his case.16 Therefore, the motion for appointment of counsel shall be DENIED without
prejudice to the filing of a similar motion at a later time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 14th day of September 2017.
s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
United States Magistrate Judge
Jones v. Maritz Research Co., Case No. 14-2467-SAC-GLR, 2014 WL 6632929, at *3 (D. Kan.
Nov. 21, 2014).
Zillner v. Brennan, No. 15-9904-DDC-GLR, 2016 WL 81229, at *2-4 (D. Kan. Jan. 7, 2016)
(citing Ficken v. Alvarez, 146 F.3d 978, 981 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted)).
Jones, 2014 WL 6632929, at *3 (citing Ficken, 146 F.3d at 981).
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?