Vaughn v. Currey et al

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; denying 9 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (vah, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CATHEY S. MAYS VAUGHN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MELISSA CURREY, et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 13-CV-273-TCK-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 9). In her motion,
Plaintiff alleges that she has “made a concerted effort to attain legal counsel” and has contacted
more attorneys than “plaintiff can remember” regarding representation in this matter. (Mot. ¶¶ 3,
4.) Plaintiff indicates that she “has full intention of paying for this appointed attorney, if the court
decides in defendant’s favor.” (Id. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any authority by which the Court can appoint
counsel for a non-indigent litigant1 in a civil matter. This is a civil lawsuit, and “civil litigants enjoy
no constitutional right to an attorney.” Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 1991).
Under the allegations of this case, there is not a statutory right to counsel either. A review of the
pleadings indicates that Plaintiff has been able to draft pleadings outlining her theories in the case,
and the Court sees no reason why Plaintiff cannot continue to do so or retain her own counsel.

1

On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), which
was denied by the Court on May 16, 2013 (Doc. 4), based on the assets available to Plaintiff and her
indication that she was able to hire counsel (which she affirms in her Motion for Appointment of Counsel).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
9) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2013.

___________________________________
TERENCE C. KERN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2