Buhl v. Berkebile

Filing 12

ORDER DENIED without prejudice 8 Motion to Expand the Record to Include All Formal Requests, Administrative Remedies, Memorandums, and Written Documentation; DENIED without prejudice 9 Motion for Court Order Compelling Respondent to Provide Photocopying ; DENIED without prejudice 10 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/26/2012.(sks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02953-BNB
LEROY BUHL,
Applicant,
v.
D. BERKEBILE, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on three motions filed by Applicant, Leroy Buhl, on
November 19, 2012. Mr. Buhl initiated this action by filing pro se on November 9, 2012,
an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1)
challenging a prison disciplinary conviction. On November 15, 2012, the court entered
an order directing Respondent to file a Preliminary Response limited to addressing the
affirmative defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies if Respondent intends to
raise that affirmative defense in this action. Respondent has not yet filed a Preliminary
Response.
The three motions now pending before the court are a “Motion to Expand the
Record to Include All Formal Requests, Administrative Remedies, Memorandums, and
Written Documentation” (ECF No. 8); “Motion for Court Order Compelling Respondent
to Provide Photocopying” (ECF No. 9); and “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (ECF
No. 10).

The “Motion to Expand the Record to Include All Formal Requests,
Administrative Remedies, Memorandums, and Written Documentation” (ECF No. 8) will
be denied without prejudice as premature. The “Motion for Court Order Compelling
Respondent to Provide Photocopying” (ECF No. 9) will be denied without prejudice
because Mr. Buhl fails to demonstrate that photocopying is necessary and fails to
identify specifically what documents he seeks to photocopy.
With respect to the “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (ECF No. 10), Mr. Buhl
alleges that he seeks appointment of counsel because he is able to conduct legal
research only through a computerized electronic law library system and his impaired
vision, allegedly caused by cataracts in both eyes, prevents him from using the
computerized electronic law library system. The motion for appointment of counsel will
be denied without prejudice because, based on the legal citations in the “Memorandum
Supportive of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (ECF
No. 1-1) filed by Mr. Buhl in this action on November 9, 2012, it appears that Mr. Buhl
has managed to conduct legal research relevant to his claims in this action. Mr. Buhl
does not allege that his eyesight recently has changed and he fails to provide any other
explanation for his alleged inability to conduct additional legal research. Accordingly, it
is
ORDERED that the “Motion to Expand the Record to Include All Formal
Requests, Administrative Remedies, Memorandums, and Written Documentation” (ECF
No. 8), the “Motion for Court Order Compelling Respondent to Provide Photocopying”
(ECF No. 9), and the “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (ECF No. 10) are DENIED
without prejudice for the reasons stated in this order.
2

DATED November 26, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3