Denison v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al

Filing 71

AMENDED ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 68 is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall select an attorney by first determining whether an attorney has previously represented the Plaintiff, and if not, by selecting an appropriate attorney from the Civil Pro Bono Panel to represent the Plaintiff in this case by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 05/12/14. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01584-PAB-MEH
JEREMY NECHOL DENISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH PARTNERS, Utilization Mgmt Comm.,
NEAL LOUSBERG, CSP Medical Provider, and
KATHLEEN BOYD, CSP Medical Provider,
Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [filed May 8, 2014;
docket #68] requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), a district court may, in its broad discretion, appoint counsel to an indigent party in a civil
case. Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court has recently approved a
pilot program for the implementation of a “civil pro bono panel.” Through this program, “a pro se
litigant who is incarcerated ... may be eligible for appointment of counsel from the Panel, within the
judicial officer’s discretion.” See Part III.B.(3) of the U.S. District Court’s Pilot Program to
I m p l e m e n t

a

C i v i l

P r o

B o n o

P a n e l ,

http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Announcements/FINAL-Civil-ProBono-Plan-General-Order_06-05-2013.pdf. The Court must evaluate a prisoner pro se litigant’s
motion for appointment of counsel by considering:
(a) the nature and complexity of the action;

(b) the potential merit of the pro se party’s claims;
(c) the demonstrated inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means;
and
(d) the degree to which the interests of justice will be served by appointment of
counsel, including the benefit the Court may derive from the assistance of the
appointed counsel.
Id. Here, the Plaintiff contends that, since or before 2004, he has experienced debilitating back pain.
This litigation has now proceeded past a motion to dismiss, and two claims against two defendants
for failure to order an MRI and for discontinuation of helpful medication have survived. Based on
the nature of Plaintiff’s physical state, and the complexity of the legal issues raised (some which
may require review of extensive medical records), I will direct that the Clerk of the Court select an
attorney from the Civil Pro Bono Panel to represent the Plaintiff in this case.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the entire record herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel [filed May 8, 2014; docket #68] is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall
select an attorney by first determining whether an attorney has previously represented the Plaintiff,
and if not, by selecting an appropriate attorney from the Civil Pro Bono Panel to represent the
Plaintiff in this case.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 12th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

2