Court Opinion

ID: 4017456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-20 16:01:01.627712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:58.950609
License: Public Domain

*733
   
  ORDER AND JUDGMENT
  
   *
  

  Michael R. Murphy, Circuit Judge
 

  After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.
  
   See
  
  Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The court therefore orders the case submitted without oral argument.
 

  On April 12, 2016, Charles Lewis filed two motions with -the United States District Court for the District of Colorado: a motion requesting a special discovery hearing and a motion to appoint counsel. The district court denied both, concluding there was “nothing filed or pending that would require legal counsel or discovery.” Proceeding
  
   pro se,
  
  Lewis then brought this appeal.
 

  We have reviewed the record, Lewis’s appellate brief, and the applicable law and conclude the district court did not err in denying Lewis’s motions. Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Lewis’s Motion to Appoint Adequate Counsel to Petition the Supreme Court for Writ of Habe-as Corpus and his Motion Requesting Special Discovery Hearing to Determine if the Level of Court Appointed Representation Was Adequate, is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated April 20, 2016.
 

  We also conclude Lewis’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, Lewis’s motion to proceed
  
   in forma pauperis
  
  on appeal is denied and he is reminded of his obligation to immediately remit any unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee.
 

   *
  

   This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.