Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01601-REB-MJW
08-03-2011
RONALD RICHARDSON, on behalf of himself and all others (Now and in the future will be) similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HICKENLOPER [sic], Governor of Colorado, DOUGLAS K. WILSON, State Public Defender, JAMES F. O'CONNOR, II, Head Administrator (ACPO), GRAYSON ROBINSON, Sheriff of Arapahoe County, JANE/JOHN DOE(s), Arapahoe County JCC, JOHN DOE, Commissioner of Arapahoe County, JOHN/JANE DOE(s), (ACDF) Classification Committee, DAVID WALCHER, Bureau Chief at (ACDF), (These defendants are sued jointly and severally, in their official and/or individual capacities), Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or File Responsive Pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 28) is granted, and defendants Hickenlooper, O'Connor, and Wilson shall thus have up to and including September 8, 2011, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court (Docket No. 24) is denied, finding no basis in law or in fact for the relief requested. It is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 22) is denied without prejudice as premature. Counsel cannot be appointed and paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but the court has broad discretion to direct the Clerk of Court to attempt to obtain volunteer counsel for a party in a civil case. See Murphy v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 2009 WL 2959205 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2009) (citing DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1993)). When making such a decision, the 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." Long v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. 1991). Having considered the current record in this case, the court finds that, even assuming the plaintiff has a colorable claim, he currently appears to be able to present his case adequately at this early stage of the litigation.