Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hall v. State Farm Insurance

United States District Court, D. Kansas

March 15, 2018

ROSEMARY HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Gerald L. Rushfelt U.S. Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff Rosemary Hall renews her request for appointment of counsel (ECF 21). This Court previously denied her first request for appointment of counsel.[1] Because Plaintiff has not provided any legal basis for appointment of counsel, the motion is denied.

         In its original denial of Plaintiff's request for counsel, the Court discussed the factors the Tenth Circuit has adopted for determining whether appointment of counsel is appropriate. Those factors include “the merits of the litigant's claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant's ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.”[2] At that time, the Court concluded: “(1) It is not clear at this juncture that Plaintiff has a colorable claim. (2) The issues are not complex. (3) Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments.”[3] The Court also noted that “[i]f it becomes apparent that appointed counsel is necessary as this case progresses, Plaintiff may renew her motion.”[4]

         “In general, there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case.”[5]The Court has broad discretion when deciding whether to request an attorney to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis.[6] In her renewed motion, Plaintiff does not provide any information that changes the Court's previous conclusions. She has not affirmatively shown that she asserts a meritorious claim, and her complaint provides an insufficient basis for the Court to appoint counsel at this time.[7] Her case appears to be for insurance benefits for injuries she apparently claims from an automobile accident. The Court finds that this issue is not complex. Finally, Plaintiff continues to appear capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments.

         Additionally, Plaintiff has shown no effort to find an attorney to represent her on a contingent-fee basis. “To obtain appointment of counsel, a party must make diligent efforts to secure counsel. This typically requires the party to meet with and discuss the case with at least five attorneys.”[8] Here, it does not appear Plaintiff has met with any attorneys.

         Finally, Defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss, both of which are still pending.[9] A court may decide to postpone the decision to appoint counsel until after the resolution of a dispositive motion “as a means of weeding out frivolous or unmeritorious cases.”[10] At this time, based on the factors for appointment of counsel and the timing of Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff's motion is denied.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff's Motion to Assign Legal Representation to Plaintiff (ECF 21) is denied without prejudice.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF 6.

[2] Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir. 1981)).

[3] ECF 6 at 2.

[4] Id.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.