Peoples v. Wichita State University

Filing 8

ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 1/19/2018. (Mailed to pro se plaintiff Darrell Peoples by regular mail.) (byk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DARRELL PEOPLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-1010-JTM-TJJ

ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,1 filed this employment discrimination
action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.2 This matter comes before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff requests that the Court
appoint counsel to represent him in this case. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion
for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
While a defendant in a criminal action has a constitutional right to be represented by an
attorney, it is well settled that a party in a civil action has no right to appointment of counsel.3
For employment discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the court
may appoint counsel “in such circumstances as the court may deem just.”4
The Tenth Circuit has identified the following relevant factors for evaluating motions for

1

2

See Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 7).
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

3

Lee v. Crouse, 284 F. Supp. 541, 543-44 (D. Kan. 1967) (“There is no absolute right to
appointment of counsel in either habeas corpus or civil rights actions.”) (emphasis added).
4

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

the appointment of counsel in Title VII cases: “(1) financial inability to pay for counsel, (2)
diligence in attempting to secure counsel, and (3) meritorious allegations of discrimination.”5 In
addition, a fourth factor, “plaintiff’s capacity to present the case without counsel” should be
considered in close cases as an aid in exercising discretion.6 The court must keep in mind that
Congress has not provided any mechanism for compensating such appointed counsel, therefore
“[t]houghtful and prudent use of the appointment power is necessary so that willing counsel may
be located without the need to make coercive appointments. The indiscriminate appointment of
volunteer counsel to undeserving claims will waste a precious resource and may discourage
attorneys from donating their time.”7
A review of the motion reveals that Plaintiff only consulted with one attorney regarding
legal representation before filing his motion. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not
made an affirmative showing he made reasonable efforts or attempts to secure counsel prior to
filing his motion for appointment of counsel. The Court will therefore deny his motion without
prejudice. If Plaintiff contacts at least five attorneys and finds he is still unable to obtain legal
representation, he may then file a renewed motion seeking appointment of counsel. The renewed
motion shall identify the particular attorneys he has contacted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be mailed to Plaintiff, who
is proceeding pro se.
5

Castner v. Colo. Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1421 (10th Cir. 1992).

6

Id.

7

Id.

Dated in Kansas City, Kansas, this 19th day of Ja
D
n
a
9
anuary 2018.
.

T
Teresa J. Jam
mes
U S. Magistr Judge
U.
rate