Opinion ID: 2776480
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bertolo’s First and Sixth Amendment Claims

Text: The only issues remaining for our review from the district court’s order dated March 22, 2013, are Bertolo’s First and Sixth Amendment claims alleging improper restriction of telephone privileges. The district court dismissed these claims for lack of exhaustion. We review de novo a district court’s finding that a plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1249 (10th Cir. 2010). We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of these claims for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-supported Amended Order and Recommendation, as adopted by the district court. -7- C. Bertolo’s Requests to Amend his Complaint and Appoint Counsel Bertolo argues that the district court erred in denying his requests to amend his complaint and appoint an attorney. Bertolo seems to contend that if he had been allowed to amend his complaint, or if the court had granted his request for an attorney, the remainder of his issues would not have been dismissed. “We review the district court’s decision to deny leave to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion.” Hertz v. Luzenac Grp., 576 F.3d 1103, 1117 (10th Cir. 2009). “When denial is based on a determination that amendment would be futile, our review for abuse of discretion includes de novo review of the legal basis for the finding of futility.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We also review the denial of appointment of counsel in a civil case for an abuse of discretion. See DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1993). Bertolo argues that the court should have allowed him to amend his complaint a fourth time to include new evidence that his disciplinary violation, from which many of his issues stemmed, had been expunged. The district court found, however, that the disciplinary violation had no effect on the legal errors and pleading deficiencies leading to the dismissal of his claims. For the reasons stated by the district court, the motion was properly denied. See Anderson v. Suiters, 499 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that proposed amendment is futile if the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal); see also Hall v. Witteman, 584 F.3d 859, 868 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting that district courts are not required to -8- engage in additional research or read the minds of parties to determine whether an amendment is justified). Additionally, Bertolo argues that the court erred in denying his request for appointment of counsel in its order dated March 21, 2012. The district court denied Bertolo’s request for an attorney after finding that Bertolo had adequately presented his claims, which were not complex or meritorious. A district court may appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff if, under the totality of the circumstances, the denial of counsel would result in a fundamentally unfair proceeding, considering “the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 839-840 (10th Cir. 1985). In support of this claim, Bertolo alleged that he has “serious medical concerns and complexities,” though he did not indicate how his condition would affect his ability to present his case. See R., Vol. I at 95; see also McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 839 (concluding that the district court erred in denying plaintiff’s request for counsel where record evidence showed plaintiff’s multiple sclerosis affected his eyesight, hearing, and abilities to communicate, read the record, and understand the proceedings). Moreover, Bertolo’s filings demonstrated his familiarity with legal concepts like motions to amend and exhaustion of administrative remedies. We have -9- reviewed the record and agree that Bertolo adequately presented the issues in his case, which were not particularly complex or meritorious. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bertolo’s motion for appointment of counsel. D. Fees Bertolo has moved to proceed on appeal without payment of costs or fees. Bertolo first requested the district court’s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Bertolo’s motion pursuant to § 1915(a)(3), finding no reasoned, non-frivolous argument and, therefore, that the appeal was not taken in good faith. We agree with the district court as to the absence of a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues he raises on appeal. Accordingly, we DENY his motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. Fee payment shall continue pursuant to this court’s order entered on June 11, 2013. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Entered for the Court Stephen H. Anderson