Opinion
No. CIV 09-0315 LH/LAM, CR 06-2263 LH.
February 5, 2010
ORDER DENYING [SECOND] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 41)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Mr. Provencio-Sandoval's [Second] Motion for Re-consideration (Doc. 41), filed on January 25, 2010. In his motion, Mr. Provencio-Sandoval asks the Court to reconsider its April 17, 2009 decision to deny him pro bono counsel. Mr. Provencio-Sandoval's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 have been denied and this case has been dismissed. See Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 29) (Doc. 32) and Judgment (Doc. 33) filed December 7, 2009. On December 31, 2009, Mr. Provencio-Sandoval appealed this Court's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. To the extent Mr. Provencio-Sandoval is requesting appointment of counsel for proceedings in this Court, his request is moot because this Court no longer has jurisdiction over his claims. To the extent he is requesting appointment of counsel for his appeal, that is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the motion is not well-taken and should be DENIED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Provencio-Sandoval's [Second] Motion for Re-consideration (Doc. 41) is DENIED.
Mr. Provencio-Sandoval filed his first Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 10) pertaining to this same issue on April 27, 2009.
Mr. Provencio-Sandoval appears to dispute the Court's interpretation of his request for pro bono assistance as a motion for appointment of counsel, and states that he "understood that pro bono meant free of charge, not to him, nor the [C]ourt." Document 41 at 1. A request made to the Court for pro bono assistance is the equivalent of a motion for appointment of counsel because providing counsel is the means by which the Court can provide pro bono assistance to pro se parties who meet certain criteria. As the Court has already explained to Mr. Provencio-Sandoval, there is no constitutional right to court-appointed counsel in a civil case, and Mr. Provencio-Sandoval does not present reasons to justify appointment of counsel. See Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 23) at 1-2 and Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) at 1 (citations omitted).