Maxton v. USA et al

Filing 119

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-00383-WYD-BNB THERON JOHNNY MAXTON, # 85599-071, Plaintiff, v. 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, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 strong. Consequently, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Dated February 18, 2014. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?