Waterman (ID 126456) v. Board of Commissioners of Columbus, Kansas (DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE - All filings to be made in case no. 5:18-cv-03092-JWB-KGG)

D. Kansas

Waterman (ID 126456) v. Board of Commissioners of Columbus, Kansas (DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE - All filings to be made in case no. 5:18-cv-03092-JWB-KGG)

DecidedJuly 15, 2019

Docket5:18-cv-03135

StatusUnknown

This text of Waterman (ID 126456) v. Board of Commissioners of Columbus, Kansas (DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE - All filings to be made in case no. 5:18-cv-03092-JWB-KGG) (Waterman (ID 126456) v. Board of Commissioners of Columbus, Kansas (DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE - All filings to be made in case no. 5:18-cv-03092-JWB-KGG)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waterman (ID 126456) v. Board of Commissioners of Columbus, Kansas (DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE - All filings to be made in case no. 5:18-cv-03092-JWB-KGG), (D. Kan. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

BRIAN WATERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 18-3135-CM-KGG BOARD OF COUNTY ) COMMISSIONERSOF CHEROKEE ) COUNTY, KANSAS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________ )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for counsel. (Doc. 123.) Plaintiff has filed four prior motions requesting counsel (Docs. 12, 46, 59, 89) all of which have been denied without prejudice (Docs. 14, 48, 82, 90). In the most recent of Plaintiff’s prior requests for counsel (Doc. 89), the Court found no justification for appointing counsel but indicated the issue would be revisited if Plaintiff survived Defendants’ dispositive motion. (Doc. 90, at 2.) The District Court recently granted in part and denied in part (Doc. 122) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 97). The undersigned Magistrate Judge notes that the claims that survived dismissal are not particularly complicated. 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”). Further,

Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to represent himself, particularly in opposing the dispositive motion. As such, the Court sees no basis to distinguish Plaintiff from the many other untrained individuals who represent themselves pro se on

various types of claims in Courts throughout the United States on any given day. Although Plaintiff is not trained as an attorney, and while an attorney might present this case more effectively, this fact alone does not warrant appointment of counsel.

The Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 123) is, therefore, DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 15th day of July, 2019, at Wichita, Kansas.

S/ KENNETH G. GALE HON. KENNETH G. GALE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

BRIAN WATERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 18-3135-CM-KGG BOARD OF COUNTY ) COMMISSIONERSOF CHEROKEE ) COUNTY, KANSAS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________ )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for counsel. (Doc. 123.) Plaintiff has filed four prior motions requesting counsel (Docs. 12, 46, 59, 89) all of which have been denied without prejudice (Docs. 14, 48, 82, 90). In the most recent of Plaintiff’s prior requests for counsel (Doc. 89), the Court found no justification for appointing counsel but indicated the issue would be revisited if Plaintiff survived Defendants’ dispositive motion. (Doc. 90, at 2.) The District Court recently granted in part and denied in part (Doc. 122) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 97). The undersigned Magistrate Judge notes that the claims that survived dismissal are not particularly complicated. 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”). Further,

Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to represent himself, particularly in opposing the dispositive motion. As such, the Court sees no basis to distinguish Plaintiff from the many other untrained individuals who represent themselves pro se on

various types of claims in Courts throughout the United States on any given day. Although Plaintiff is not trained as an attorney, and while an attorney might present this case more effectively, this fact alone does not warrant appointment of counsel.

The Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 123) is, therefore, DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 15th day of July, 2019, at Wichita, Kansas.

S/ KENNETH G. GALE HON. KENNETH G. GALE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Waterman (ID 126456) v. Board of Commissioners of Columbus, Kansas (DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE - All filings to be made in case no. 5:18-cv-03092-JWB-KGG), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-id-126456-v-board-of-commissioners-of-columbus-kansas-do-not-ksd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack