Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02422-WDM-OES

Document 80

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 03-cv-02422-WDM-OES

LUTHER EARL MADRY, JR., Plaintiff, vs. LISA PICKERING, CPL. GILBERT J. LADRINI, JR., JEFFERY MAIZE, and DANIEL ANDERSON, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL O. Edward Schlatter, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff has made a motion requesting that he be appointed counsel in this case. The court does not have the power to appoint an attorney over his or her objection, Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989), nor does the court have funds available to pay an attorney who agrees to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case. Absent the power to appoint counsel to a case, the court can only seek volunteer counsel to represent a plaintiff such as the plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court maintains a list of pro se cases for which the court is seeking volunteer counsel. The court must consider several factors in deciding whether to seek volunteer counsel: (1) the merits of the litigant' claims, (2) the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, (3) the s plaintiff' ability to present his claims, and (4) the complexity of the legal issues raised. Rucks v. s

Case 1:03-cv-02422-WDM-OES

Document 80

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 2 of 2

Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991)). A further consideration is whether there exists any special circumstances such as those in McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 837 (10th Cir. 1985), where the pro se plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair, had poor eyesight, suffered from a speech impediment and memory lapses, and had general difficulty in communications. See Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979. In this case, plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to frame facts and state claims for relief under various constitutional provisions. His filings to date indicate that he has a firm grasp of the facts and issues in this case, that he is capable of presenting the case, and has presented his claims adequately. The legal issues, though varied, are not overly complex, novel or difficult to state or analyze. Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, and resides in the Denver metropolitan area which offers various facilities housing law libraries and other legal resources. The record bears no indication that plaintiff has made efforts to obtain counsel for himself. Finally, I decline to make any finding as to the merits of plaintiff' claims, in light of the opportunity for the filing of dispositive motions in s this case (deadlines for which will be scheduled at the Scheduling/Status Conference set for August 15, 2005) and the fact that any such finding could improperly serve as an advisory opinion at this juncture of the matter. Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff' Motion To Appoint Counsel [Filed July 12, 2005; Docket #78] is DENIED. s Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of July, 2005. BY THE COURT:

s/O.Edward Schlatter O. Edward Schlatter United States Magistrate Judge

2