Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00737-MSK-KLM.
December 3, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Court to Appoint Counsel Under Exceptional Circumstances [Docket No. 71; Filed December 1, 2008] (the "Motion"). On September 4, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to be placed on the Court's list of parties in need of volunteer counsel [Docket No. 38]. The Court noted, however, "that the Court is without authority to appoint counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff will only secure counsel through this method if counsel volunteers to represent him." Order [#38] at 2. Although Plaintiff asks me to reconsider my determination that I do not have authority to appoint involuntary counsel, he has failed to provide statutory support for my ability to do so. As noted before, except in circumstances not relevant here, my "appointment" authority is limited to seeking volunteer counsel for Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel."); see also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301 (1989) ("Congress did not intend § 1915[(e] to license compulsory appointments of counsel. . . ."); Loftin v. Dalessandri, 3 Fed. Appx. 658, 663 (10th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that "§ 1915(e) does not authorize the district court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent defendant in a civil case"); Custard v. Turner, No. 06-cv-01036-WYD-CBS, 2008 WL 4838564, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 6, 2008) (unpublished decision) (noting that the court is without statutory authority to commit federal funds to "require counsel to represent" an indigent litigant). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion is DENIED. Until counsel volunteers to represent Plaintiff, he must proceed pro se.