Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05186/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05186-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAI.tlnited States Court of Appeals 

GREGORY LEE RUCKS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY BOERGERMANN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 141995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 94-5186 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 92-C-263-BU) 

Submitted on the briefs:* 

Gregory Lee Rucks, Hominy, Oklahoma, Pro Se Plaintiff-Appellant. 

David L. Pauling, City Attorney, and Paul F. Prather, Assistant 

City Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

* 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 94-5186 Document: 01019279474 Date Filed: 06/14/1995 Page: 1 
The Plaintiff, Mr. Rucks, alleges that the Defendant, Mr. 

Boergermann, a Tulsa Police Officer, violated his Fourth Amendment 

rights during an investigation and subsequent arrest on April 21, 

1991. Mr. Rucks brought a pro se civil rights action against 

Officer Boergermann pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the Northern 

District of Oklahoma.1 Mr. Rucks was granted in forma pauperis 

status and twice sought appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(d). Both motions were denied and eventually the case went to 

a jury-trial, where a verdict was returned in favor of the 

Defendant. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, Mr. Rucks presents two issues. First, he claims 

that the magistrate judge erred in denying his motions for 

appointment of counsel. He also appears to attempt to challenge 

the outcome of the trial itself, claiming that the "District 

Court's Ruling Was Clearly Erroneous." 

The appellee generously interprets this second claim as a 

challenge to the judge's instructions to the jury on probable 

cause, which at least would be a properly appealable issue, albeit 

not one upon which the appellant would prevail. However, what Mr. 

Rucks really seems to be trying to say is that, as a matter of 

law, his civil rights were violated in that he was arrested 

without probable cause. Unfortunately, this is simply not an 

1 The gist of Mr. Rucks's complaint was that he was arrested 

without probable cause, in violation of his civil rights. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-5186 Document: 01019279474 Date Filed: 06/14/1995 Page: 2 
appealable issue because he failed to move for a judgment as a 

matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). 

We review the denial of appointment of counsel in a civil 

case for an abuse of discretion. Shabazz v. Askins, 14 F.3d 533, 

535 (lOth Cir. 1994). In order that we may properly review such a 

decision, we have, in recent cases, stressed the necessity for the 

district court "to give careful consideration to all the circumstances with particular emphasis upon certain factors that are 

highly relevant to a request for counsel." McCarthy v. Weinberg, 

753 F.2d 836, 838 (lOth Cir. 1985). Adopting the reasoning of the 

Seventh Circuit opinion of Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885 (7th 

Cir. 1981), we stated, "[i]f the plaintiff has a colorable claim 

then the district court should consider the nature of the factual 

issues raised in the claim and the ability of the plaintiff to 

investigate the crucial facts." 753 F.2d at 838. We recently 

reiterated the factors to be considered in deciding whether to 

appoint counsel, including "the merits of the litigant's claims, 

the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant's ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the 

legal issues raised by the claims." Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 

994, 996 (lOth Cir. 1991). See also, Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 

(3rd Cir. 1993) (discussing factors to be considered). 

Mr. Rucks, in his two briefs in support of his motions, 

clearly attempted to address these issues, but it is unclear 

whether the judge in this case considered these factors. In fact, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-5186 Document: 01019279474 Date Filed: 06/14/1995 Page: 3 
no reasons were offered why the motion was being denied other than 

a general statement that "appointment of counsel in this case is 

not warranted." Indeed, it seems that the judge may have been 

unaware of these recent, relevant cases, for in twice denying Mr. 

Rucks' motion, the magistrate judge cited three less relevant 

cases, the most recent of which was published in 1973. 

The Appellee suggests that the fact that the motion was 

denied twice supports the proposition that the court gave full 

consideration to Mr. Rucks's motions. However, a review of the 

judge's orders reveals that both are absolutely identical in 

wording. If anything, this suggests that the court gave short 

shrift at least to the second of Mr. Rucks's motion, and quite 

possibly to both motions. 

Short shrift, however, does not automatically equate to an 

abuse of discretion. Where the trial court has failed to provide 

reasons for denying a request for counsel under §1915(d), we may 

independently examine the propriety of such a request. See, 

Barnhill v. Doiron, 958 F.2d 200 (7th Cir. 1992). Our review of 

the record reveals that Mr. Rucks has a firm grasp of the 

fundamental issues in his case and appears to _be capable of 

presenting his case intelligently and coherently. Furthermore, 

the issues in this case were not particularly complex. Our review 

also reveals that, even with appointed counsel, Mr. Rucks had 

little likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Mr. Rucks has also 

failed to demonstrate the existence of any special circumstances 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-5186 Document: 01019279474 Date Filed: 06/14/1995 Page: 4 
such as those in McCarthy v. Weinberg, where the pro se plaintiff 

was confined to a wheelchair, had poor eyesight, suffered from a 

speech impediment and memory lapses, and had general difficulty in 

communication. 753 F.2d at 837. While we do not quarrel with Mr. 

Rucks's assertion that having counsel appointed would have 

assisted him in presenting his strongest possible case, the same 

could be said in any case. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-5186 Document: 01019279474 Date Filed: 06/14/1995 Page: 5