Vigil v. Jones et al

Filing 103

ORDER. The Clerk of Court is directed to include this matter on the list of pro se cases available for volunteer counsel. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/1/12. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01676-PAB-KLM
FRANK VIGIL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

ORDER
ENTERED BY KRISTEN L. MIX, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court sua sponte.
The Court does not have the power to appoint an attorney without his or her
consent, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989), nor
does the Court have funds available to pay an attorney who agrees to represent an indigent
litigant in a civil case. Nevertheless, the Court can seek volunteer counsel to represent a
plaintiff if the Court determines in its discretion that is appropriate to do so. The Clerk of
the Court maintains a list of pro se cases for which the Court is seeking volunteer counsel.
Placement on this list does not mean that a plaintiff will automatically receive counsel.
Rather, placement on the list results in representation being secured for the plaintiff only
if an attorney volunteers to represent him. Because of the number of cases on the list and
the shortage of volunteer attorneys, placement on the list frequently does not result in
counsel being obtained. In such circumstances, despite placement of his case on the list,
-1-

a pro se plaintiff remains responsible for litigating his case himself.
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Colorado State Penitentiary, one of the facilities run
by Defendant Colorado Department of Corrections. See Am. Compl. [#61]. The Court
recognizes that Plaintiff initiated this case pro se and was granted permission to proceed
in forma pauperis. See Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Under 28 U.S.C. 1915
[#1]; Order [#2]. On February 21, 2012, the District Judge adopted the portion of the
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#99] that recommended denying
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#89]. See Order [#102]. This matter will thus
soon be set for trial.
In consideration of the imminent trial setting, Plaintiff’s presumed indigence, and
Plaintiff’s incarceration status, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s case should be placed
on the list of cases available for volunteer counsel. Again, placement on the list
frequently does not result in counsel being obtained. If an attorney does not volunteer
to represent Plaintiff, Plaintiff is warned that he must comply with any scheduled Court
dates and Court orders. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to include this matter
on the list of pro se cases available for volunteer counsel.
DATED: March 1, 2012 at Denver, Colorado.

-2-