RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff Martha Wangari's third application for court-appointed counsel. Dkt. # 34. On August 24, 2012, in response to plaintiff's first motion to appoint counsel, the court referred plaintiff's motion to the pro bono screening committee. Dkt. # 10. The screening committee recommended appointment of counsel, but the court was unable to locate counsel who would agree to represent plaintiff throughout the entirety of her case. However, the court believed that the interest of justice would be served if pro bono counsel was appointed for the limited purpose of conducting early ADR procedure, and appointed counsel for that purpose. Dkt. ## 11-12. Mediation was ultimately unsuccessful, and the court terminated pro bono counsel's representation. Dkt. # 23.
On June 5, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's second request for pro bono counsel because the court was unable to locate counsel to represent plaintiff for the entirety of her case, and early ADR proceedings with representation of counsel was unsuccessful. Dkt. # 29. The court makes the same finding on Ms. Wangari's third request.
Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court refers plaintiff to the court's website that includes, among other things, a pro se guide. See http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/pro-se. Also available on the court's website is a link to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this ...