Cross v. Ferriero
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Affidavit in Support (ECF No. 9 ) is DENIED.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 5/14/14. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ROSALIND M. CROSS,
DAVID S. FERRIERO, Archivist of the
United States, National Archives and
No. 4:13CV2338 TIA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 9). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). After consideration of the motion and Plaintiff’s Financial Affidavit in support, the Court
will deny the motion.
On November 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 99-page Employment Discrimination Complaint in
federal court and paid the $400 filing fee. (Compl., ECF No. 1) In her Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant discriminated against her based on her race and color, resulting in a failure
to promote, disparity in pay, disparate treatment, retaliation, and harassment in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Id. at pp. 2-5, 1938) On April 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, asserting that she made
diligent efforts to obtain legal counsel but was unable to do so because of her poverty. (ECF No.
9) After appearing at a Rule 16 conference, Plaintiff filed a financial affidavit in support of her
motion for appointment of counsel. Upon review of that affidavit, the Court will deny Plaintiff in
forma pauperis status and deny the motion for appointment of counsel.
In her financial affidavit, Plaintiff states that she is employed and receives a bi-weekly pay
check of $2,899. Her yearly salary is $75,367. In addition, she owns a home last appraised at
$42,000 and a lot valued at $1,500. Her bi-weekly payroll deductions total $1147.53, and her biweekly debts, which include utilities, loans, and credit cards, total $1327. Plaintiff’s affidavit
further avers that she nets $424.47 per month after paying her monthly bills. (Financial Aff., ECF
no. 13) While Plaintiff contends that she has family issues that require her to financially help her
niece and nephew, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficient funds such that in forma pauperis
status is not warranted. See Cross v. General Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983)
(“[T]he decision whether to grant or deny in forma pauperis status is within the sound discretion
of the trial court.”). Aside from the fact that Plaintiff already paid the filing fee, which renders her
request for IFP status moot, she is not entitled to consideration of her motion for appointment
counsel based on her poverty.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel.” This provision applies only to indigent pro se litigants who
have been granted in forma pauperis status in a civil case. Ruach v. Berts, Civ. No. 12-1129
(PAM/JSM), 2013 WL 796322, at *2 (D. Minn. March 4, 2013). As stated above, the Court in
its discretion finds that Plaintiff is not indigent and thus is ineligible for appointment of counsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
Affidavit in Support (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
/s/ Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14th day of May, 2013.
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?