Opinion ID: 4521020
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motions to Appoint Counsel

Text: “We have previously directed district courts to evaluate, in connection with a request to appoint counsel under § 1915, the merits of a prisoner’s claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the prisoner’s ability to investigate the facts and present his claims.” Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004). “The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel.” McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). 5 “We review a district court’s refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent prisoner in a civil case for an abuse of discretion.” Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115. We will reverse the district court’s ruling “[o]nly in those extreme cases where the lack of counsel results in fundamental unfairness.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In denying each of Mr. Miles’s motions seeking appointment of counsel, the district court provided a reasoned explanation. It denied his first motion after concluding that the entire case should be dismissed due to Mr. Miles’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, and principally based this ruling on its view that Mr. Miles did not assert a colorable claim. After Mr. Miles successfully convinced us, while appearing pro se, to reverse the district court’s first dismissal of his case, the district court denied his second motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice because (1) Mr. Miles did not meet his burden to convince the court that his claims had merit; (2) the case turned on events directly involving Mr. Miles and he did not need professional training to explain what allegedly happened to him; (3) the court believed Mr. Miles demonstrated an ability to represent himself, including by convincing us to reverse the district court’s first dismissal of his case; and (4) Mr. Miles’s case was not legally or factually complex. The district court denied Mr. Miles’s third motion because (1) he did not point to any change in circumstances that supported his request; (2) intervening filings in the case enlightened the court as to additional weaknesses in his case; and (3) Mr. Miles had continued to show an ability to competently represent himself. 6 Mr. Miles does not explain how the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions to appoint counsel. We have reviewed the district court’s stated rationales and conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in denying any of Mr. Miles’s motions seeking the appointment of counsel.1