From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riley v. Janecka

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Jan 24, 2013
No. CIV-12-715 MCA/WDS (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2013)

Opinion

No. CIV-12-715 MCA/WDS

01-24-2013

WILLIAM RILEY, Petitioner v. JAMES JANECKA, WARDEN, and GARY K. KING, New Mexico Attorney General, Respondents


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion For the Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. #13) 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 finds no basis for the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #13) denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

W. DANIEL SCHNEIDER

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Riley v. Janecka

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Jan 24, 2013
No. CIV-12-715 MCA/WDS (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2013)
Case details for

Riley v. Janecka

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM RILEY, Petitioner v. JAMES JANECKA, WARDEN, and GARY K. KING, New…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Date published: Jan 24, 2013

Citations

No. CIV-12-715 MCA/WDS (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2013)