Opinion ID: 6327564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Buchanan’s Motions for Production

Text: When considering the denials of Mr. Buchanan’s motions for production, we apply the abuse-of-discretion standard. Martinez v. Schock Transfer & Warehouse Co., 789 F.2d 848, 850 (10th Cir. 1986). We conclude that the court acted within its discretion. Mr. Buchanan labelled his first motion a “motion for subpoena” (spelling corrected). In the motion, Mr. Buchanan asked for production of the video footage rather than for issuance of a subpoena. The court denied the motion, explaining that Mr. Buchanan would need to seek production by following the procedures spelled out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules. Mr. Buchanan instead filed a second motion, again purporting to request subpoenas but actually requesting production of the video footage itself. The court again denied the motion, explaining again that Mr. Buchanan needed to seek production by complying with the federal and local rules. 4 Appellate Case: 21-7014 Document: 010110663197 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 5 After the close of discovery, Mr. Buchanan filed a third motion to produce the video footage, which the district court again denied on the same grounds. These rulings fell within the district court’s discretion. Mr. Buchanan was pro se, but even pro se litigants must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules. Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). These rules required Mr. Buchanan to serve the defendants with the discovery requests; those requests were not to be filed. See E.D. Okla. Local Civil Rule 26.1 (stating that document requests are not ordinarily to be filed). In these circumstances, the district court had the discretion to deny Mr. Buchanan’s requests. III. Mr. Buchanan’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel Mr. Buchanan moved not only for the video footage but also for appointment of counsel. The court could ask an attorney to represent Mr. Buchanan, but could not order acceptance of the case. Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 396 (10th Cir. 2016). In deciding whether to request counsel, the district court was to consider the merits of the claims, their nature, the claimant’s ability to present the claims, and their complexity. Id. at 397. The district court stated that it had considered these factors, and Mr. Buchanan has not pointed to any flaws in the court’s consideration. Mr. Buchanan instead argues that he could not present documentation to the district court because of a pandemic. But he does not provide any 5 Appellate Case: 21-7014 Document: 010110663197 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 6 specifics, and he did not tell the district court of his inability to provide supporting documents. Based on the information available to the district court, it had discretion to decline to seek counsel for Mr. Buchanan. Affirmed. Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach