Maples v. Doe et al
ORDER GRANTING 61 Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel. The Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall place Plaintiff Ryan Maples on the Pro Bono Panel list. Plaintiff shall remain responsible for all deadlines in this matter until the Clerk of Court notices the parties that counsel has accepted pro bono appointment in this matter. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 10/9/2019. (skclc2)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00513-WJM-SKC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [#61]
This Order addresses Plaintiff Ryan Maples’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(the “Motion”) [#61] 1. Defendants have not made an appearance in this matter. For the
foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
Maples seeks the appointment of pro bono counsel. In civil cases, whether the
appointment of counsel is appropriate is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995); Hill v. Smithkline Beecham
Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Only in those extreme cases where the
lack of counsel results in fundamental unfairness will the district court’s decision be
overturned.”). The district court should evaluate “the merits of a [litigant’s] claims, the
nature and complexity of the factual issues, and the [litigant’s] ability to investigate the
The Court uses “[#__ ]” to refer to specific docket entries in CM/ECF.
facts and present his claims.” Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115 (citation omitted). Under Local Rule
15(f), the Court applies the following factors when reviewing a motion for appointment of
counsel in a civil action: (1) the nature and complexity of the action; (2) the potential merit
of the pro se party’s claims; (3) the demonstrated inability of the unrepresented party to
retain an attorney by any other means; and (4) the degree to which the interest of justice
will be served by appointment of counsel, including the benefit the Court may derive from
the assistance of the appointed counsel. D.C.COLOLAttyR 15(f).
Weighing these factors, the Court finds that appointment of Counsel is appropriate.
Maples brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that the Defendant Daniel
Lusk violated his Fourth Amendment rights and used excessive against him. [See
generally #17.] He has been permitted to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis. [#3.]
Maples indicates that his he cannot afford to hire an attorney, despite repeated efforts to
retain local civil rights attorneys, and that his imprisonment inhibits his ability to litigate
this case. [#61 at ¶¶ 1 and 5.] The Court believes it will benefit from the assistance of
appointed counsel for Maples as the case proceeds through discovery and toward trial.
Accordingly, the Court finds the appointment of pro bono counsel is appropriate.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [#61] is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall select, notify, and appoint counsel to represent Ryan
Maples in this civil matter.
NOTICE TO PRO SE PARTY: Maples is advised that the Clerk will select
counsel from the Panel; however, there is no guarantee that Panel members will
undertake representation in every case selected for the appointment. The Court
reminds Maples that he is responsible for all scheduled matters, including filings,
hearings, depositions, motions and trial.
DATED: October 9, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
S. Kato Crews
U.S. 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?