From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Serna v. Romero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Mar 28, 2013
CV 12-0853 MV/WPL (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2013)

Opinion

CV 12-0853 MV/WPL

03-28-2013

ANTONIO LOPEZ SERNA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY ROMERO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This matter is before me on Antonio Lopez Serna's motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 14.) There is no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel in a civil proceeding. See Macquish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988). When a plaintiff is proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, "[t]he burden is on the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel." Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985)). In deciding whether to appoint counsel, a court should consider the following factors: the merits of the claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues raised in the claims, and the litigant's ability to investigate the facts and present the claims. Id. A decision to deny counsel will only be overturned when it results in fundamental unfairness. Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1224 (10th Cir. 2006).

Based on an initial review of the record, Serna appears to understand the issues in the case and to be representing himself in an intelligent and capable manner. However, I may refer the matter for consideration under the Court's Pro Bono Plan. Under this plan, a selection committee will review the case and vote as to whether the case qualifies for pro bono representation. I have decided to refer this case to the committee. My recommendation of this matter to the selection committee is in no way a guarantee of representation nor should it be construed as indicative of the Court's opinion regarding the merits of Serna's claims. The Court will contact Serna with the outcome of the committee's decision.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion is denied.

______________________

William P. Lynch

United States Magistrate Judge
A true copy of this order was served
on the date of entry--via mail or electronic
means--to counsel of record and any pro se
party as they are shown on the Court's docket.


Summaries of

Serna v. Romero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Mar 28, 2013
CV 12-0853 MV/WPL (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Serna v. Romero

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO LOPEZ SERNA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY ROMERO, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 28, 2013

Citations

CV 12-0853 MV/WPL (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2013)