Bell v. Younger

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARVA R. BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLEMAN YOUNGER,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-4007-HLT-BGS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Plaintiff Marva R. Bell filed this action pro se, ostensibly alleging legal malpractice. (See
generally Doc. 1 and 10 attachments thereto.) In conjunction with her federal court Complaint (id.),
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (IFP motion, Doc. 3), with a
supporting financial affidavit (Doc. 3-1). The undersigned Magistrate Judge previously granted IFP
status to Plaintiff. (Doc. 6.)
After a review of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the undersigned identified certain concerns and thus
recommended to the District Court that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 7.) The
District Court ultimately adopted that Report & Recommendation of Dismissal on February 19,
2026. (Doc. 13, at 1.) Judgment was entered that same day. (Doc. 14.)
On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed her Notice of Appeal on the District Court’s adoption of
the Report & Recommendation of Dismissal. (Doc. 15.) Subsequent to the Notice of Appeal but
also on March 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 16.)
In making this filing, Plaintiff used the District of Kansas form Motion for Appointment of
Case 5:26-cv-04007-HLT-BGS Document 21 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Counsel; there is no reference to a request for appellate counsel. (Id.) The next day, March 20,
2026, Plaintiff filed a new motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 17, sealed). In making this filing, Plaintiff
used the District of Kansas form Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees; there is no
reference to a request to proceed IFP for purposes of appeal. (Id.)
Later that same day, the preliminary record on appeal and an amended preliminary record on
appeal were transmitted to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Docs. 18 and 19). The Appeal was
docketed by the Tenth Circuit that same day. (Doc. 20.) A notation on the District of Kansas
docket for this case dated March 20, 2026, indicates that no appellate filing fee was paid by Plaintiff.
The Court again notes that the two pending motions were made on District of Kansas forms
and do not specifically reference Plaintiff’s appeal. That stated, the undersigned Magistrate Judge
finds that they should be construed as relating to the appeal, rather than the underlying District of
Kansas case as a judgment has been filed in the present case.
As to the request for appellate counsel, the Court finds that such relief must be made to the
Tenth Circuit. As such, Plaintiff’s request for counsel (Doc. 16) is hereby DENIED.
As to Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP (Doc. 17), the Court again notes that Plaintiff was
previously granted IFP status by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 6.) As such, Plaintiff is
referred to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3), which states that:
[a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-
court action, or who was determined to be financially unable to obtain
an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis without further authorization, unless:
(A) the district court – before or after the notice of appeal is
filed – certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or
finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in
forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the
certification or finding; or
(B) a statute provides otherwise.
Id.
Case 5:26-cv-04007-HLT-BGS Document 21 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
In this instance, the docket is absent of any certification by the District Court that Plaintiff’s
appeal was not made in good faith. Plaintiff therefore is still litigating this case in forma pauperis and
her IFP status continues with, and applies to, the appellate process. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc.
17) was unnecessary and is found to be MOOT.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc.
16) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 17) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 26th day of March, 2026.
/S / BROOKS G. S EVERSON
Brooks G. Severson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:26-cv-04007-HLT-BGS Document 21 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 3