Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01323/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01323-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BENITO NEGRON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirrni: 

APR 2 4 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1323 

) 

OFFICER CARL ADAMS (Adams County); ) 

OFFICER M.D. KENNEDY (Adams County); ) 

OFFICER ROBERT A. FULLER; OFFICER ) 

HARRY NIMROD; OFFICER RANDY HENNESSY,) 

(D.C. Civ. No. 88-A-1644) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Benito Negron appeals the district court's refusal 

to request an attorney to represent him in pursuing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 claim. There is, of course, no constitutional · right to 

appointed counsel in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1323 Document: 01019972060 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 1 
; 

district court can "request" an attorney to represent a party 

unable to employ counsel in a civil case, but its refusal to do so 

is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. See McCarthy v. 

Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). 

We may not consider the merits of Negron's appeal, however, 

because a refusal to appoint is an interlocutory order which is 

not immediately appealable. See Cotner v. Mason, 657 F.2d 1390 

(10th Cir. 1981). We agree with the government that none of the 

exceptions that would permit an interlocutory appeal are 

applicable to the situation before us. Plaintiff can present his 

evidence to the district court. If he should lose he has shown 

that he can file an appeal, at which time we will be able to 

review the denial of appointed counsel with more facts before us 

from which to make a judgment on the efficacy of that decision. 

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1323 Document: 01019972060 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 2