Coronado v. Paralta et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Amend Petition; denying 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel; and denying without prejudice 10 Motion to Amend Petition by Chief Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. (atc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ROBERT NEIL CORONADO,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CV 18-205 RB/CG

FNU PARALTA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Petition, (Doc. 6), filed March 8, 2018; Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc 7),
filed March 9, 2018; and Plaintiff’s letter requesting leave to amend, (Doc. 10), filed May
11, 2018. Having considered the motions, relevant law, and the record of this case, the
Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, (Doc. 6), DENY
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc 7), and DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff’s letter requesting leave to amend, (Doc. 10).
Plaintiff Robert Neil Coronado filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking relief
from this Court on claims relating to his medical care at the correctional facility where he
is incarcerated. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. In his
Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, (Doc. 6), Plaintiff seeks to add additional claims for
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), a party
may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it.
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Amend Petition within 21 days after his Petition was
filed, so he may amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1). The Court will grant
the Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, (Doc. 6), and deem the operative Petition in this

case to consist of the original Petition (Doc. 1) and the requested amendment (Doc. 6).
Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1992). (Court should liberally
construe the factual allegations in a pro se party’s pleadings).
In his Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. 7), Plaintiff seeks appointment of an
attorney to represent him on the grounds that he has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. There is no right to appointment of counsel in a
civil case, and the granting of leave to proceed under § 1915 does not afford a right to
appointment of counsel. Instead, the decision whether to request assistance of counsel
rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Beaudry v. Corrections Corp. of America, 331
F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir.2003); MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th
Cir.1988). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider
the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal
issues, and the litigant’s ability to investigate the facts and to present his claims. Hill v.
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir.2004). The Court has
reviewed the Petition and subsequent filings in light of the foregoing factors. Plaintiff
appears to understand the issues in the case and to be representing himself in an
intelligent and capable manner. See Lucero v. Gunter, 52 F.3d 874, 878 (10th Cir.
1995). Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. 7).
In his letter requesting leave to amend, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend his
Petition a second time. (Doc. 10 at 2). He appears to seek review by this Court of a
decision made by a California claims management service in connection with a
California worker’s compensation proceeding. (Doc. 10 at 1-2). It is questionable
whether this Court would have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s proposed amended

2

claim. However, the Court will not reach that issue at this time. Plaintiff has already
been granted leave to amend his Petition once as a matter of course, and the Court will
deny him leave to amend a second time until the Court has completed preliminary
screening of the Petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). The denial of the
letter request is without prejudice to a renewed motion for leave to amend by Plaintiff
after the Court makes its preliminary screening determination.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, (Doc. 6), is GRANTED and the
operative Petition this case is deemed to consist of Docs. 1 and 6;
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. 7), is DENIED; and
(3) Plaintiff’s letter requesting leave to amend, (Doc. 10), is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to a renewed request after the Court completes preliminary screening of
this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3