Opinion ID: 168329
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional matters

Text: Three other matters require our attention. First, M r. Johnson expresses concern that the district court may not have received all of the letters he sent or filed. However, he has not attached copies of those letters or otherwise described them so that the record can be checked to evaluate his concern. He may explore this issue with the district court, if necessary. Second, the clerk of this court received a letter and videotape from M r. Johnson and construed the submission as a motion to supplement the record. According to Sheriff Kennard’s opposition to the motion, M r. Johnson did not serve a copy of the videotape on him, but Sheriff Kennard correctly hypothesized that the videotape depicts an incident that occurred when M r. Johnson was booked into the SLCJ on November 8, 2005, two months after he filed his complaint in this case. It does not appear that M r. Johnson filed a motion to supplement his complaint in the district court to include the incident depicted on the tape or otherwise presented the tape to the district court for consideration. The videotape, therefore, is irrelevant to his claims on appeal. W e therefore deny the motion to supplement the record. Finally, in his appellate brief, M r. Johnson requests this court to give him “the rights to a law [y]er.” A plt. Opening Br. at 5 (page numbered “4”). W e note -9- that M r. Johnson, as a civil litigant, has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Beaudry v. C orr. C orp. of Am ., 331 F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Rather, a court has discretion to request an attorney to represent a litigant w ho is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The district court denied M r. Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel, finding that appointment of counsel was not necessary “at this time” because it was not yet clear that M r. Johnson had “asserted a colorable claim.” R., Doc. 7 at 2. In view of the provisional nature of the district court’s denial and the fact that we are remanding this case, we deny M r. Johnson’s request. M r. Johnson may file a new motion for appointment of counsel in the district court or a motion requesting the district court to reconsider his earlier motion if the court does not do so sua sponte.