Jordan M. Leffel v. Colby Crum, et al. — Memorandum and Order
Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied plaintiff Jordan M. Leffel's Motion for Appointment of Counsel in his pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found that there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in civil cases and exercised its discretion to deny the motion without prejudice, citing Tenth Circuit precedent including Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995). The Court simultaneously granted Leffel's Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Initial Partial Filing Fee, extending the deadline from April 17, 2026 to May 15, 2026.
“There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court DKS Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Court issued two rulings in this prisoner civil rights action: (1) denied the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, citing established Tenth Circuit law that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil proceedings and that courts have only discretion to request volunteer counsel; and (2) granted the plaintiff's motion for extension of time to submit the initial partial filing fee, extending the deadline from April 17, 2026 to May 15, 2026. The denial of counsel was without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of renewed motion if the case survives screening.
For affected parties, this ruling means that pro se civil rights plaintiffs in the District of Kansas face a high bar for obtaining court-appointed counsel, consistent with the discretion-based standard applied across the Tenth Circuit. Prisoners and civil litigants proceeding in forma pauperis should not expect automatic appointment of counsel and must demonstrate sufficient merit, complexity, and inability to present claims on their own. The extension of the filing fee deadline provides additional time for plaintiffs who may face financial barriers to initiating litigation.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Jordan M. Leffel v. Colby Crum, et al.
District Court, D. Kansas
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 5:26-cv-03055
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JORDAN M. LEFFEL,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 26-3055-JWL
COLBY CRUM, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Plaintiff
is currently incarcerated at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas, his claims
relate to his incarceration at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas. The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing fee of
$8.50. The initial partial filing is due by April 17, 2026. On April 6, 20206, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 5) finding that the proper processing of Plaintiff’s claims could not
be achieved without additional information from appropriate Kansas Department of Corrections
officials and ordered the preparation of a Martinez Report. This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4) and Motion for Extension of Time to Pay
Initial Partial Filing Fee (Doc. 6).
Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel, arguing that he is financially unable to afford
counsel and the assistance of counsel is needed to effectively defend his rights. (Doc. 4, at 1.) The
Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional
right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir.
1995). “Rather, a court has discretion to request an attorney to represent a litigant who is
proceeding in forma pauperis” in a civil case. Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir.
2006) (emphasis added) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1)). In other words, if this motion is granted,
it means only that the Court will request that an attorney volunteer to be appointed to represent
Plaintiff at no cost to Plaintiff. The Court cannot guarantee that an attorney will volunteer. See
Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 396 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Courts are not authorized to appoint counsel
in § 1983 cases; instead, courts can only ‘request’ an attorney to take a case.”).
The decision whether to appoint counsel—meaning to request counsel to provide
representation at no cost to Plaintiff—in a civil matter lies in the discretion of the district court.
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). The burden is on the applicant to convince
the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant appointment of counsel. Steffey v.
Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d
1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004)). It is not enough “that having counsel appointed would have assisted
[the prisoner] in presenting his strongest possible case, [as] the same could be said in any case.”
Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (citing Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)).
In deciding whether to request volunteer counsel for Plaintiff, the Court has considered
“the merits of the prisoner’s claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and
the prisoner’s ability to investigate the facts and present his claims.” Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979; Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115. The Court concludes in this case that (1) it is not clear at this juncture that
Plaintiff has asserted a colorable claim against a named defendant; (2) the issues are not yet
clarified and may not be complex; and (3) Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts
and arguments. Thus, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice to refiling if this matter
survives screening.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking an extension of time to submit his initial partial
filing fee. The Court grants the motion. The deadline to submit the initial partial filing fee in the
amount of $8.50 is extended to May 15, 2026.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Initial
Partial Filing Fee (Doc. 6) is granted. The deadline to submit the initial partial filing fee is
extended to May 15, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 10, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Named provisions
Citations
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court DKS Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from D. Kan..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court DKS Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.