Maxton v. USA et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/18/14 denying Plaintiff's 116 Petition to Have Attorney Scott Varholak Take over this Case. (BWS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00383-WYD-BNB
THERON JOHNNY MAXTON, # 85599-071,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
BOP DIRECTOR, Washington, D.C.;
T.K COZZA-RHODES, Warden F.C.I.;
CHARLES DANIEL, Warden F.C.I.;
S. COLLINS, Health Service, U.S.P.;
LT. ANTHONY, U.S.P. Florence,
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Petition to Have Attorney Scott Varholak Take
over this Case [Doc. #116, filed 02/11/14] (the “Motion”). The Motion is DENIED.
The plaintiff requests that the court “allow attorney Scott Varholak to handle this civil
action from this point forward . . . .” Mr. Varholak is a Federal Public Defender and, so far as I
know, not available to represent the plaintiff in this civil action. If I am wrong and if Mr.
Varholak wants to represent the plaintiff, he is free to enter his appearance.
The court has broad discretion in determining whether to appoint counsel in a civil case.
DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1993). In deciding whether to appoint counsel,
the following factors are considered: (1) the merits of the litigant’s claims, (2) the nature of the
factual issues raised in the claims, (3) the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and (4) the
complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims. Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979
(10th Cir. 1995).
Here, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which amply presents his case. The factual
and legal issues raised by the plaintiff’s claims are not complex. In addition, the allegations of
the Complaint do not convince me that the plaintiff’s chances of succeeding on the merits are
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
Dated February 18, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?