DAVID J. WAXSE, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application for Appointment of Counsel (doc. 2) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).
The district court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for a plaintiff in an employment discrimination action. The discretion granted to the court is extremely broad. A plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a federal civil case.
Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992). See also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).
Castner, 979 F.2d at 1420.
Id.
To guide the court's discretion, the Tenth Circuit has identified several factors to be considered when evaluating a motion for appointment of counsel in a Title VII case. Before counsel may be appointed, the plaintiff "must make affirmative showings of (1) financial inability to pay for counsel; (2) diligence in attempting to secure counsel; and (3) meritorious allegations of discrimination." In addition, "the plaintiff's capacity to present the case without counsel . . . should be considered in close cases as an aid in exercising discretion."
Id. at 1420-21.
Id. at 1421.
Id.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Application for Appointment of Counsel under these standards. Turning first to Plaintiff's financial ability to afford counsel, the Court finds his financial resources are sufficient to permit him to hire counsel. Although a plaintiff need not be destitute to qualify for appointed counsel, he must demonstrate the inability to hire counsel and still meet his living expenses.
Id. at 1422 (financial inquiry for appointment is less stringent than that required for in forma pauperis determination) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff's affidavit of financial status (doc. 4) indicates he currently is employed and earns a gross salary of $3800 per month. The affidavit submitted establishes that Plaintiff's wife also is employed, earning a gross salary of "$4,000+" per month. At the time the affidavit was filed, Plaintiff had $40,000 of equity in his home, which he estimates has a value of $275,000. Plaintiff also indicates that, in addition to his primary residence, he owns six additional properties (equity totaling approximately $75,000), four of which he rents out and two of which are in the process of being renovated for resale. Plaintiff states he does receive income from rent payments, but fails to include in his affidavit the amount he receives from his tenants.
Plaintiff states his monthly expenses total approximately $6,200. This $6,200 figure includes $1,700 in expenses for gas, electric and water expenses for all seven of the houses owned by Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff includes in his financial affidavit these expenses related to the six other properties owned by him, the Court notes again that he fails to include in his affidavit rental income from the six properties. Regardless of this fact, the $6,200 in monthly expenses listed is $1,600 per month less than the $7,800 in monthly income he and his wife receive. Based on this information, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficient financial resources to retain counsel. Thus, this initial factor does not weigh in favor of appointing counsel.
With respect to Plaintiff's efforts to obtain representation, Plaintiff lists the names of three attorneys who declined to represent him in this lawsuit. Plaintiff also listed the names of two attorneys who did not return his call. Although a plaintiff is "not required to exhaust the legal directory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has made a reasonably diligent effort under the circumstances to obtain counsel." Applying this rule, this Court has typically has required a Title VII plaintiff seeking appointed counsel to confer with at least five attorneys regarding legal representation. The failure to confer with at least five attorneys is grounds to deny the application for appointment of counsel. Because Plaintiff fails to establish that he actually conferred with five attorneys regarding taking his case — whether on a contingency or hourly basis — this second factor does not weigh in favor of appointing counsel.
Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d at 1422 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Wheeler v. Wichita Police Dep't, No. 97-1076-FGT, 1997 WL 109694, at *2 (D.Kan. Feb. 27, 1997).
Id.
Regarding the "meritoriousness" of Plaintiff's claim, and based on the Court's review of the Complaint (doc. 1) and the Final Agency Decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (doc. 3), the Court finds Plaintiff's claims to have sufficient merit to warrant the appointment of counsel. Thus, this third factor weighs in favor of appointing counsel.
Given two of the three factors weigh against appointing counsel, and the discretionary nature of the Court's duty in determining whether appointment of counsel is appropriate, the Court deems it necessary to also consider the fourth Castner factor — Plaintiff's capacity to present the case without counsel. Upon consideration of this fourth factor, the Court finds Plaintiff should be able to present his case without the assistance of counsel. Plaintiff's Complaint, although brief, does not reflect a claim that is factually or legally complex, and no detailed factual investigation appears necessary. The Court does not envision the need for expert testimony or extensive or complex discovery. Given the pleadings and exhibits filed to date, Plaintiff apparently is a literate person who seems capable of conducting any requisite investigation. Because the Court determines Plaintiff can pursue this claim adequately in his pro se capacity, appointing an attorney to represent him is not necessary.
Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d at 1422.
Id. (complexity of issues should be addressed in deciding whether to appoint counsel) (citation omitted).
Id. (considering a plaintiff's ability to gather and present facts) (citation omitted).
Reviewing the information presented, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficient financial resources to retain counsel and has failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to obtain counsel on his own. Although Plaintiff appears to present a meritorious claim, he fails to demonstrate the inability to prosecute such claim adequately in his pro se capacity. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is denied and counsel will not be appointed at this time. This decision is without prejudice and Plaintiff may renew his request at a later date if the circumstances surrounding his request have changed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.