Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01010/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Uaited StateS Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ciraiit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RAEBECA HERRON HITE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

THOMAS W. HITE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

.) 

v. ) 

) 

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS-ZONING FOR ) 

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; ) 

JAMES SANDY RUSSELL; SHERMAN & ) · 

HOWARD, law firm, also dba Dawson ) 

Nagel, Sherman & Howard, law firm, ) 

its partners, partnerships, ) 

corporations, insurers and agents, ) 

including Attorney Michael A. . ) 

Williams and Attorney Stuart Pack, ) 

personally, and/or their ) 

successors; JIM RUSSELL INTER- ) 

NATIONAL RACING DRIVERS SCHOOL ) 

(CANADA) LTD., its stockholders, ) 

subsidiaries, insurers, agents and) 

corporate officers, including ) 

Jacques Couture and David w. ) 

McConnell, personally, and fran- ) 

chisor "Jim Russell" and/or James ) 

A. Russell, personally, and their ) 

successors, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

NOV 5 1990 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1010 

(D.C. No. 89-B-904) 

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

* 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: 90-1010 Document: 010110047532 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 1 
Before McKAY, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, 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. 

This appeal arises from the district court's denial of the 

plaintiff-appellant's motion to appoint counsel and dismissal of 

the action without prejudice for failure to timely serve the 

defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j). The district court's 

denial of appellant's request to appoint counsel is an appealable 

order under 28 u.s.c. § 1291 (1988). See Ivey v.· Board of Regents 

of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 269, 269 (9th Cir. 1982); Rucker v. 

City of St. Louis, 612 F.2d 1102, 1103 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 

447 U.S. 910 (1980). 

Acting prose on behalf of herself and as trustee for Michael 

Thomas Heydt, aka Michael Thomas Hite, Raebeca Herron Hite brought 

these combined actions in the district court against the defendants for alleged civil rights violations. The appellant also 

requested a stay of a state court proceeding, which was denied by 

the district judge and is not at issue in this appeal. The appellant claims here that she is unable to accomplish service of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1010 Document: 010110047532 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 2 
r 

process without the aid of court-appointed counsel. 

This court liberally construes prose complaints. See 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Here, the appellant 

apparently claims that a prosecution brought against Thomas W. 

Hite and appellant in state court for violation of a zoning 

ordinance was solely an effort to obstruct a tort action filed by 

Michael Hite in a foreign jurisdiction. The appellant alleges 

that the prosecuting attorney for the county in which the zoning 

ordinance violation was prosecuted is the son of a defendant in 

the tort action filed by Michael. The appellant claims that the 

prosecution in state court violates their civil rights, presumably 

attempting to state a cause .of action under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 

(1988). The appellant also contends that the defendant law firms 

have conspired to deprive Michael of adequate representation on 

the tort claim. 

A district court may in its discretion appoint counsel in a 

in forma pauperis civil proceeding pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) 

(1988). The exercise of that power, however, has been limited to 

exceptional circumstances, and the decision to request counsel to 

represent the movant "'rests in the sound discretion of the district courts unless denial would result in fundamental unfairness, 

impinging on due process rights.'" McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 

836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (quoting Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 

887 (7th Cir. 1981)). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1010 Document: 010110047532 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 3 
• • 

Here, the district court found no merit to the appellant's 

claims and therefore concluded that the actions filed by the 

appellant did not warrant appointment of counsel. After reviewing 

the record and prose brief filed by the appellant, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, 

we affirm the district court's denial of the appellant's motion 

for appointed counsel and dismissal of the appellant's claims 

without prejudice. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1010 Document: 010110047532 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 4