Jackson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARCIA L. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-CV-2706-TC-TJJ
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging negligence resulting in a slip and
fall at her apartment complex. This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4).
Unlike a criminal defendant, a plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional or statutory
right to appointed counsel.1 For a party proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
provides discretionary authority to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” The provision, however, does not provide a statutory right to counsel.2 In determining
whether to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Tenth Circuit has directed district courts
to evaluate the following factors: “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
1 Castner v. Colo. Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992).
2 See, e.g., Leon v. Garmin Int’l., No. 10-2495-JTM, 2010 WL 4174643, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 20,
2010).
Case 2:25-cv-02706-TC-TJJ Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

2
issues raised by the claims.”3 Further, the party requesting the appointment of counsel must make
diligent efforts to secure an attorney on his or her own. 4 This District’s form motion for
appointment of counsel in a civil case requires a movant to list at least five attorneys contacted
before filing the motion.
The appointment of counsel for a plaintiff in a civil case is rare because Congress has not
provided any mechanism or funding to compensate counsel appointed in civil cases.5 Therefore,
the Court would have to find an attorney willing to be appointed and provide his or her legal
services pro bono (without payment). The Court therefore must make thoughtful and prudent use
of its appointment power.
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel under the above
factors and concludes the factors do not warrant the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff at this
time. The Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (in forma
pauperis) in this case but has withheld service of summons and the complaint upon the District
Judge’s review of the recently issued Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 5), and any response thereto,
as it appears Plaintiff’s claims are entirely duplicative of those previously dismissed in Marcia
Jackson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 24-cv-2561-JAR-TJJ.
3 Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Rucks v.
Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)).
4 Cline v. Seal, No. 22-CV-4009-TC-TJJ, 2022 WL 873419, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2022).
5 See Castner, 979 F2d at 1420 (“Congress has not provided any mechanism for compensating []
appointed counsel. Thoughtful 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.”).
Case 2:25-cv-02706-TC-TJJ Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

3
A review of Plaintiff’s filings to date shows that she appears capable of adequately
representing herself at this early stage of the proceedings. The factual and legal issues do not
appear overly complex. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any reason why she would be unable to
investigate the facts and present her claims to the Court herself in this case, particularly given the
liberal standards governing pro se litigants. Plaintiff’s pleadings are sufficiently cogent to present
her positions.
While “a court may well appoint counsel at the outset of a case, it might also decide to
postpone the decision – for example, until after resolution of dispositive motions – in order to give
itself both more time and more information to evaluate the plaintiff's capabilities and the merits of
the case.”6 The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion, but without prejudice to the refiling of
the motion at a later stage of the proceedings, if warranted, such as after the Court conducts its
review of the Order to Show Cause and any response thereto.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 5) is denied without prejudice.
A copy of this Order shall be mailed to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 5, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
6 Cline v. Russo, No. 22-cv-4010-TC-TJJ, 2022 WL 873418, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2022)
(quoting Ficken v. Alvarez, 146 F.3d 978, 981 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02706-TC-TJJ Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3