Opinion ID: 557202
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Retention of Counsel and the Postjudgment Proceedings

Text: 19 Upon filing his complaint, Branum had requested the appointment of counsel to assist him; his application had been denied. Thereafter, he apparently had continued to attempt to find an attorney to represent him; he had retained counsel to represent him at the April 27 hearing; he lost that attorney when it was learned that judgment had been entered on April 20. New counsel was found on April 26. 20 On May 8, 1990, represented by new counsel, Branum moved for reconsideration of the court's April 20 order and judgment. The grounds of the motion were that Branum had not received adequate notice of the one-week advancement of the hearing date; that he had managed to secure counsel who was to appear with him on April 27 and who had expected to request an adjournment in order to prepare an amended complaint; that that attorney had bowed out when informed of the court's April 20 decision; and that the attorney now representing Branum had just become involved in the case. The motion requested that the April 20 order be set aside or modified to permit Branum's new counsel to prepare an amended complaint. 21 In an order dated August 24, 1990 (August 24 order), the court denied the motion for reconsideration. Noting that the motion was untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after entry of the judgment, the court denied the motion because it fail[ed] to articulate a valid reason for this court to grant the relief requested: 22 The court, clearly recognizing that it must construe a pleading filed by a pro se litigant liberally, ... carefully examined the issues presented by the inartful [sic ] pleading, giving plaintiff every benefit of the doubt, and ultimately determined that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted. It bears noting that plaintiff never submitted any response in any form to the defendants' motion to dismiss although defendants' motion had been adjourned three times to accom[m]odate the plaintiff. Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, readily admits that his complaint as submitted failed to properly articulate any claim against the Defendants; moreover, in seeking what is essentially vacatur of the court's prior order and permission to amend the original pleading, plaintiff has not even bothered to summarize for the court what would be the specific claims he now wishes to allege ... in an intelligent manner. The court believes that it has afforded plaintiff every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he has a valid claim against these defendants.... Permitting plaintiff at this juncture to amend his complaint would, in the court's view, be an exercise in futility.... 23 The court fully adheres to its prior decision and order and denies the present motion for reconsideration. 24 (Emphasis in original.) 25 Branum timely filed the present appeal from the order denying reconsideration.