Buffalohead (ID 70630) v. Cook et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 10/25/2024. Mailed to pro se party Plaintiff by regular mail. (hmg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JEROME BUFFALOHEAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN COOK, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 24-cv-3035-TC-TJJ
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTNENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Eighth
Amendment action based on Defendants’ failure to protect him. The Court has found that
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants survives screening.1 This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 18).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. In support of his
motion, Plaintiff states he is incarcerated, indigent, can barely speak or write English, cannot hold
a pencil or pen or any writing utensil in his hand due to nerve damage, and he cannot sit up to write
or type.
Unlike a criminal case, there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil
case.2 The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil matter lies in the discretion of the district
court.3 “The burden is on the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his
1
See Mem. & Order (ECF No. 16).
2
Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th
Cir. 1995).
3
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991).
claim to warrant the appointment of counsel.”4
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 case.”5
In deciding whether to appoint counsel, courts must evaluate “the merits of a prisoner’s
claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the prisoner’s ability to
investigate the facts and present his claims.”6 The Court concludes in this case that the issues are
not complex and Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments at this
stage of the proceedings, albeit with the assistance of fellow inmates. The Court denies the motion
without prejudice to refiling the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 18) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 25, 2024, in Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
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)).
4
5
Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)).
6
Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115 (citing Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979).
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?