Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08045/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08045-0/pdf.json

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

---

FlL,CJlJ u nito:1 Statt?S Coiirt of Appcaln 

Tenth Circuit. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

GARY L. FITZHUGH, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) No. 91-8045 

) (D . C. No . C91-106-B) 

) ( D. Wyo.) 

THE WYOMING BOARD OF CHARITIES AND 

REFORM, 

Defendant, 

and 

DUANE SHILLINGER, ARCHIE KIRSCH, M.D., 

ZACK RINDERER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before EBEL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable John L . Kane, Jr., Senior 

States District Court for the District of 

designation. 

District Judge, United 

Colorado, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and 

not be cited, or 

except for purposes 

judgment has no precedential value and shall 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

(continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 1
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court 

granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. On appeal, 

Plaintiff argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion 

in failing to appoint counsel to represent him; (2) the district 

court abused its discretion in denying his Motion for Extension of 

Time for Answering Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and 

(3) the district court erred in granting the Motion for Summary 

Judgment. We conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in failing to appoint counsel for Plaintiff, but did 

abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff's motion for an 

extension of time. Because we remand on the second issue, we do 

not reach whether the district court erred in granting summary 

judgment. 

On April 30, 1991, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants 

violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and 

unusual punishment by their deliberate indifference to his medical 

condition. Plaintiff had tested positive for human 

immunodeficiency virus (HIV+) . Plaintiff claimed Defendants were 

deliberately indifferent by using outdated standards for AZT 

treatment and using ineffective testing methods to monitor his 

conditions. Also, on April 30, Plaintiff filed a Combined Motion 

to Accelerate Action on Docket and Motion to Set for Immediate 

Hearing. On May 13, 1991, Plaintiff filed a Supplement to 

(continued from previous page) 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 

2 

10th Cir. R. 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 2
Original Complaint alleging that the day he mailed his complaint 

he was given AZT, but Defendants had not provided him with a 

hepatitis B vaccination. A few days later, on May 20, Plaintiff 

filed a Motion for Order Accelerating Discovery and Requiring 

Filing of Discovery Documents with the Court. The district court 

granted the motion on May 22. In a May 28 Order on Initial 

Pretrial Conference, the district court set June 14 as the 

deadline for filing dispositive motions, June 21 as the response 

date, June 25 as the date to file counter affidavits in response 

to a summary judgment motion, and June 28 as the discovery cutoff 

date. 

On May 31, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Plaintiff contended the 

district court should appoint counsel because he could not afford 

to hire an attorney, the issues in the case were complex, he had 

no knowledge of the law, he had received assistance from an inmate 

who had no law training, he could not contact expert witnesses, 

his claims were meritorious, and he could not present his case to 

a jury. The district court denied the motion. 

On June 13, Defendants filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time 

in Which to File Dispositive Motions. The district court granted 

the motion the same day . Without using the enlarged time, 

Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on June 14. On 

June 18, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. On 

June 25, Plaintiff filed a motion for a ten-day extension of time 

to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff 

also filed a Motion to Vacate July 25, 1991, Trial Date. The 

(continued from previous page) 

36.3. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 3
grounds for the June 25 motions were his limited ability to 

research and the time involved in obtaining discovery. 

Also on June 25, Plaintiff filed several other requests for 

discovery. He filed a first set of interrogatories for Defendant 

Zack Rinderer, a second set of interrogatories and first request 

for documents for Defendant Archie Kirsch, M.D., and a first set 

of interrogatories and request for documents for Defendant Duane 

Shillinger. Plaintiff also requested permission to take two 

written depositions. On June 26, the district court granted the 

request to take written depositions. 

On July 1, the district court considered Defendants' Motion 

for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery, 

for an extension of time, and to vacate the trial date. Based on 

"Defendants' unchallenged affidavits and medical records, " the 

court concluded that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's Eighth 

Amendment rights, because Defendants did not display deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. The district court 

determined that Defendants never intentionally ignored 

and Drug Administration standards regarding AZT. 

any Food 

Even if 

Defendants did not adhere to standards, the court 

conduct did not amount to deliberate indifference. 

the court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary 

decided their 

Accordingly, 

Judgment . It 

denied Plaintiff's motion for extension of time on the grounds 

that the issues were not so complex as to warrant an extension and 

Plaintiff had adequate notice of the hearing on the matter and 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 4
adequate access to materials to prepare a response. The court 

also denied as moot the motions to compel discovery and to vacate 

the trial date. 

Subsequently, Kirsch filed his answers to the 

interrogatories, and Plaintiff filed his response to the Motion 

for Summary Judgment. Additionally, Plaintiff appealed. 

Plaintiff first argues that the district court abused its 

discretion by refusing to appoint counsel to represent him. 

Plaintiff believes counsel should have been appointed because (1) 

he could not afford counsel; (2) the issues were complex; (3) he 

had no knowledge of the law or civil procedure; (4) he was unable 

to effectively contact witnesses; (5) his claims were meritorious; 

and (6) the attorneys he contacted refused to represent him. 

"'[T]he district court has broad discretion to appoint 

counsel for indigents under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d), and its denial of 

counsel will not be overturned unless it would result in 

fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights.'" 

Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 199l)(quoting 

Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir. 1981)); see Miller 

v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1572 (10th Cir. 1991). In determining 

whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider various 

factors, including the following: (1) the merits of the 

plaintiff's claims; (2) the nature of the factual issues raised in 

the claims; (3) the plaintiff's ability to understand and present 

his claims; and (4) the complexity of the legal issues raised in 

the claims. Williams, 926 F.2d at 996. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 5
After examining the record on appeal, we conclude the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint 

counsel. In so ruling, we do not foreclose the district court's 

consideration of another Motion for Appointment of Counsel during 

further proceedings. Cf. Miller, 948 F.2d at 1572 (if prose has 

colorable claim but lacks ability to present it, district court 

should appoint counsel); McNeil v. Lowney, 831 F.2d 1368, 1372 

(7th Cir. 1987)(pro se demonstrated ability to present case), 

cert. denied, 485 U.S. 965 (1988); Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 

1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1986)(that prose alleges sufficient facts to 

state a claim will not require appointment of counsel without 

other significant factors). 

Plaintiff argues the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his Motion for Extension of Time for Answering Defendants' 

Motion for Summary Judgment. Due to his limited opportunities to 

use the prison law library, Plaintiff believes he should have been 

permitted to respond within the time limits set out in the court's 

Order granting Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time in Which 

to File Dispositive Motions. Plaintiff contends that he did not 

challenge Defendants' affidavits because he did not have time to 

do so. 

We review the district court's ruling on the motion for an 

extension of time for an abuse of discretion. Under the 

circumstances of this case, we conclude the district court abused 

its discretion in failing to grant the motion. 

Plaintiff had only eight days to respond to the Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Because he was in prison and without a lawyer, 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 6
eight days was an insufficient time in which to research and 

prepare a response. 

Additionally, Plaintiff had 

Defendants' alleged deliberate 

discovery 

indifference 

requests 

pending 

regarding 

with the 

district court. The Motion to Compel Discovery was a request to 

have Kirsch answer interrogatories. The purpose of the 

interrogatories was to establish that Kirsch was aware of what 

tests to give. In the first set of interrogatories directed to 

Rinderer, Plaintiff 

testing, the standards 

obtained the new 

sought 

for 

~T 

to obtain information concerning 

AZT treatment, and when Rinderer 

standards. In the second set of 

interrogatories and request for production of documents for 

Kirsch, Plaintiff sought information concerning testing and when 

and where Kirsh obtained the new AZT standards. In his first set 

of interrogatories and request for documents to Shillinger, 

Plaintiff, among other things, sought to establish when he had 

first requested AZT. Also, in Plaintiff's motion to take written 

depositions, he sought to depose two persons who had prepared 

affidavits in support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Plaintiff's deposition questions for one of the persons concerned 

the standards for A.ZT treatment, the appropriate tests for HIV+, 

the effect on his medical condition from the time the first HIV+ 

test was given until AZT was prescribed, the necessity of a 

hepatitis B vaccination, and the effectiveness of AZT. 

Although the district court granted the request for the 

written depositions, Plaintiff had only five days from the date of 

the Order granting the motion until the date the district court 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 7
ruled on summary judgment to obtain written answers to the 

questions and to prepare his response to the summary judgment 

motion. 

Because the discovery requested addressed the issue of 

deliberate indifference, see Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum 

Exploration, Inc., 790 F.2d 828, 833 (10th Cir. 1986)(plaintiff 

must notify court of need for additional discovery to oppose 

motion for summary judgment), the district court should have 

granted the motion for an extension of time. Although Plaintiff 

had requested expedited proceedings, that request was not at the 

expense of a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Motion for 

Summary Judgment. The district court abused its discretion in 

denying the motion for extension of time. 

The judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED as to the denial of the Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel and VACATED and REMANDED for further 

proceedings, after a reasonable opportunity for discovery, on the 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Ci rcuit Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-8045 Document: 010110240425 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 8