United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. Rushfelt U.S. Magistrate Judge
Rosemary Hall renews her request for appointment of counsel
(ECF 21). This Court previously denied her first request for
appointment of counsel. Because Plaintiff has not provided any
legal basis for appointment of counsel, the motion is denied.
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.” 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.” The Court also noted that “[i]f it
becomes apparent that appointed counsel is necessary as this
case progresses, Plaintiff may renew her
general, there is no constitutional right to appointment of
counsel in a civil case.”The Court has broad discretion
when deciding whether to request an attorney to represent a
party proceeding in forma pauperis. 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. 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.
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.” Here, it does not appear Plaintiff has met
with any attorneys.
Defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss, both of
which are still pending. 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.” At this time, based on the
factors for appointment of counsel and the timing of
Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that
Plaintiff's Motion to Assign Legal Representation to
Plaintiff (ECF 21) is denied without
IS SO ORDERED.
 ECF 6.
 Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d
994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Maclin v. Freake,
650 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir. 1981)).
 ECF 6 at 2.