Opinion
24-3087-JWL
07-01-2024
DERRICK S. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. D. HUDSON, Warden, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, brings this pro se civil rights action. Plaintiff is incarcerated at Pekin-FCI in Pekin, Illinois. Plaintiff's claims are based on incidents occurring during his incarceration at FCI-Leavenworth in Leavenworth, Kansas (“FCIL”). On June 14, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 4) (“MOSC”) granting Plaintiff until July 15, 0224, in which to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 5).
Plaintiff alleges in his motion to appoint counsel that he cannot afford to obtain counsel and he is proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court has considered Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995). The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil matter lies in the discretion of the district court. Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). “The burden is on the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel.” Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004)). It is not enough “that having counsel appointed would have assisted [the prisoner] in presenting his strongest possible case, [as] the same could be said in any case.” Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)).
In deciding whether to appoint counsel, courts must evaluate “the merits of a prisoner's claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the prisoner's ability to investigate the facts and present his claims.” Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115 (citing Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979). The Court concludes in this case that (1) it is not clear at this juncture that Plaintiff has asserted a colorable claim against a named defendant; (2) the issues are not complex; and (3) Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments. The Court denies the motion without prejudice to refiling the motion if Plaintiff's Complaint survives screening.
The Court cautions Plaintiff that the July 15, 2024 deadline to respond to the Court's MOSC remains in effect. Failure to respond by the deadline may result in dismissal of this matter without further notice for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 5) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.