Paige (ID 108422) v. Martell et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 24 is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 09/15/17. Mailed to pro se party Michael P. Paige by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MICHAEL P. PAIGE,
(fnu) MARTELL, et al.,
O R D E R
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #24) filed on September 2, 2107.
denied at this time.
counsel in a civil case.
Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547
(10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir.
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991).
burden is on the applicant to convince the court that there is
sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of
Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir.
2006), quoting Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111,
1115 (10th Cir. 2004).
It is not enough “that having counsel
appointed would have assisted [the prisoner] in presenting his
strongest possible case, [as] the same could be said in any
Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223, quoting Rucks v. Boergermann,
appoint counsel, the district court should consider “the merits
investigate the facts and present his claims.”
Rucks, 57 F.3d
at 979; Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115.
Considering these factors, the Court concludes that it is
not clear at this point that Plaintiff has asserted a colorable
The Court has ordered a Martinez report, which has not
yet been filed.
The Court has not yet made the determination of
whether or not Plaintiff’s claim survives the initial screening
However, this denial is made without prejudice.
If it becomes
further progresses, Plaintiff may renew his motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel (Doc. #24) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 15th day of September, 2017, at Kansas City,
s/ David J. Waxse
DAVID J. WAXSE
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?