Opinion
22-3198-JWL-JPO
10-17-2022
TOMMY J. MAY, Plaintiff, v. (FNU) BUNTING, ET AL., Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES P. O'HARA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, a prisoner in state custody, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On September 27, 2022, the court denied plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of that ruling.
As the court explained in its previous order, plaintiff has no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this civil matter. Rather, the decision whether to appoint counsel lies in the discretion of the district court, which must consider several factors, including the complexity of the issues presented and the plaintiff's apparent ability to present his claims with clarity. Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir.1995). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has directed courts to make “[t]houghtful and prudent use of the appointment power ... so that willing counsel may be located without the need to make coercive appointments.” Castner v. Colo. Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992).
This matter is still being screened, and the Court has requested the production of a report under Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir.1978). The court has considered the record and again concludes that plaintiff is able to present his claims clearly and that the issues themselves do not appear to be particularly complicated. The court therefore finds the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this stage in the action and will deny the plaintiff's motion.
THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of counsel (Doc. 9) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.