Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00087-EWN-CBS

Document 55

Filed 09/19/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-00087-EWN-CBS ROBERT D. GANDY, Plaintiff, v. JOE ORTIZ, Director, GARY WATKINS, Superintendent, TREVOR WILLIAMS, Major, LT. ADELMAN, and DR. KATHERINE CHITTENDEN, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF' SECOND MOTION S FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL _____________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer This civil action comes before the court on Gandy's "Motion for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)" (filed September 14, 2005) (doc. # 52). Pursuant to the General Order of Reference dated April 5, 2005 and the memorandum dated September 15, 2005 (doc. # 54), the Motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the pending motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. As the court explained in its June 27, 2005 Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel (doc. # 47) and at the preliminary Rule 16 scheduling conference held September 8, 2005, indigent civil litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to be represented by a lawyer. Merritt v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d 761, 763

1

Case 1:04-cv-00087-EWN-CBS

Document 55

Filed 09/19/2005

Page 2 of 2

(7th Cir. 1983). "The 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) (citations omitted). "Only in those extreme cases where the lack of counsel results in fundamental unfairness will the district court's decision be overturned." Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115 (citation omitted). For the same reasons explained in the court' June 27, 2005 Order Denying s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and at the preliminary Rule 16 scheduling conference, the court is within its discretion in declining to request counsel to represent Gandy. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Gandy's "Motion for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)" (filed September 14, 2005) (doc. # 52) is DENIED.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of September, 2005.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

2