From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crawford v. Heredia

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Feb 4, 2010
CV 10-0036 JH/WDS (D.N.M. Feb. 4, 2010)

Opinion

CV 10-0036 JH/WDS.

February 4, 2010


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


THIS MATTER comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion For the Appointment of Counsel. (Document #9) 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides that the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. The Court has broad discretion to appoint counsel for indigents under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and its denial of counsel will not be overturned unless it would result in fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights. Long v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. 1991). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider a variety of factors, including the merits of the litigant's claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant's ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims. Id.

The Court has considered the factors noted above, and sees no basis for the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment of Counsel (Document #9) denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Crawford v. Heredia

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Feb 4, 2010
CV 10-0036 JH/WDS (D.N.M. Feb. 4, 2010)
Case details for

Crawford v. Heredia

Case Details

Full title:DAVID M. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, v. MIKE HEREDIA, et al. Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Feb 4, 2010

Citations

CV 10-0036 JH/WDS (D.N.M. Feb. 4, 2010)