ANITA K. BLUE, NICHOLAS BLUE, Plaintiffs,
T.F.I., THE FARM INC. et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
KENNETH G. GALE United States Magistrate Judge
In conjunction with their federal court Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (IFP Application, Doc. 3, sealed), with an accompanying Affidavit of Financial Status (Doc. 3-1), as well as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 4.) In ruling on these motions, the Court recommended that the IFP application be denied, while denying the motion for counsel. (Docs. 5, 6.)
The Court previously held that Plaintiff failed to establish that her access to the courts would otherwise be seriously impaired if she is not granted IFP status. Based on the information provided in Plaintiff’s financial affidavit, her monthly income from Social Security appeared to exceed her stated monthly expenses by almost $600.00. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider provides sufficient additional information regarding Plaintiff’s expenses, medical bills, and consumer debts (see Doc. 7) for the Court to determine that the Motion to Reconsider should be GRANTED in regard to Plaintiff’s IFP application.
In regard to the request for reconsideration of the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Plaintiff has again failed to provide the Court with any basis to distinguish herself from the many other untrained individuals who represent themselves pro se in Courts throughout the United States on any given day. In support of the motion to reconsider, Plaintiff merely contends that she “is not an Attorney, and cannot afford to hire an Attorney in this matter.” (Doc. 7, at 1.) She also states that she “needs an Attorney, appointed by the Court to bring a just a fair end to this matter.” (Id.) As the Court indicated previously, although Ms. Blue is not trained as an attorney, and while an attorney might present the case more effectively, this fact alone does not warrant appointment of counsel. The Court reiterates that the factual and legal issues in this case are not unusually complex. Cf. Kayhill v. Unified Govern. of Wyandotte, 197 F.R.D. 454, 458 (D.Kan. 2000) (finding that the “factual and legal issues” in a case involving a former employee’s allegations of race, religion, sex, national origin, and disability discrimination were “not complex”). As such, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED in regard to Plaintiff’s request for counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 7) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for IFP status (Doc. 3, sealed) and correlating portion of the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 7) be GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider is DENIED in regard to the portions relating to Plaintiff’s request for counsel. (Doc. 7.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s office shall proceed to issue summons ...