Opinion
Civil No. 1:02cv152
May 26, 2004
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and a motion to reschedule the pretrial conference. (Dkt. nos. 18 28.)
Included in Plaintiff's moving papers is a "Motion on U.S. Attorney Utah Oct. 1, 2003 Ltr." (Dkt. No. 18.) However, Plaintiff did not request any relief from this court and merely included a number of factual and historical statements surrounding his claims. As a result, this court will not consider Plaintiffs additional "motion" because it is not a motion at all, and does not ask the court to take any action.
Plaintiff previously filed two motions requesting appointment of counsel that were considered, and denied, by Magistrate Judge Nuffer. (Dkt. nos. 5 7.) Plaintiff now makes the same request before this court. Courts have a duty to liberally construe pleadings of pro se litigants. Brown v. Williams, 36 Fed. Appx. 361, 362 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Meade v. Grubs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir. 1988)). Therefore, this court will construe Plaintiff's motion as an appeal of Magistrate Judge Nuffer's September 22, 2003 ruling. In his ruling, Magistrate Judge Nuffer explained that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in discrimination cases. See Nuffer Order p. 1 (citing Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992)). Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that the court in its discretion may appoint counsel, Magistrate Judge Nuffer applied the Castner factors and found that Plaintiff did not establish the necessary elements for the court to appoint counsel for Plaintiff. See Nuffer Order p. 3. This court agrees with Magistrate Judge Nuffer's analysis and conclusion, and therefore denies Plaintiff's request for a court-appointed attorney.
In addition, Plaintiff has made a motion to postpone the pretrial conference for six months due to his mental and physical disabilities, his lack of an attorney, and the fact that his car keys have been stolen. (Dkt. No. 28.) In his February 18, 2004 motion, Plaintiff explained that he missed the pretrial conference set for February 11, 2004 due to his disabilities. However, Plaintiff apparently did not realize that Magistrate Judge Nuffer had cancelled the February 11 pretrial conference on January 5, 2004. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to postpone the pretrial conference is moot because it was previously cancelled.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion for a court-appointed attorney is DENIED, and Plaintiff's motion for postponement of the pretrial conference is DENIED as moot.