Donofrio v. Board of Commissioners

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ROBERT DONOFRIO, Plaintiff, v. No. 23-cv-0072-WJ-JHR BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al, Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING CURE AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.

3) (IFP Motion). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4). The IFP Motion is deficient because it does not include a six-month inmate account statement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff shall cure this deficiency within thirty days of entry of this Order.

The failure to timely comply will result in dismissal without further notice.

As to the remaining motion, “[c]ourts are not authorized to appoint counsel in [civil] … cases; instead, courts can only ‘request’ an attorney to take the case” on a pro bono basis. Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 397 (10th Cir. 2016). This decision is a matter of discretion. Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 916 (10th Cir. 2012). Relevant factors include “the merits of the claims, the nature of the claims, [the inmate’s] ability to present the claims, and the complexity of the issues.”

Rachel, 820 F.3d at 397. Considering these factors, and because Plaintiff does not explain why he requests counsel, the Court will not take the extraordinary step of asking a local attorney to handle this case on a pro bono basis.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit a certified copy of his inmate account statement reflecting transactions for a six-month period.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED.

UNITED STATES MAGIS TE JUDGE