Jones III v. Becerra ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOHN PAUL JONES III, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:22-cv-00952-JHR XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary, Dept. of Health and Human Service, Defendant. ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENCY AND DENYING REQUEST TO APPOINT COUNSEL Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which states: "Notification of appeal rights by the MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board] indicates that since this case involves a claim of discrimination, that the filing fee may be waived, and a court-appointed attorney provided. I am requesting both." Doc. 1 at 8, filed December 14, 2022. Order to Cure Deficiency Federal law requires that the Clerk of Court "require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court ... to pay a filing fee of $350 ... [and] such additional fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a, b).1 The Court "may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person 1 The fee for instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding is comprised of a $350.00 filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. §1914, and a $52.00 administrative fee. who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff has not paid the $402.00 fee, has not filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and has not cited any legal authority that would allow the Court to "waive" payment of the filing fee. Plaintiff shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order either pay the $402.00 fee or file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form). Failure to timely pay the $402.00 fee or file an Application may result in dismissal of this case. Order Denying Request to Appoint Counsel “[C]ivil litigants have no right to counsel.” Witmer v. Grady County Jail, 483 Fed.Appx. 458, 462 (10th Cir. 2012). The decision to appoint counsel is left to the “extremely broad” discretion of the district court. Castner v. Colo. Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992). While courts have authority to “request an attorney to represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis,” Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added), the Court cannot "require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case," Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989) (emphasis added). Congress has not provided any mechanism, process, or funds to pay appointed counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Thus, the Court not only considers the benefits of having a represented plaintiff, but also must consider the hardship imposed on an attorney who is appointed to serve without remuneration or compensation, as well as without assurance that he or she would have funds available to assist in the investigation of claims, conduct formal discovery, retain experts, pay witness fees, or otherwise defray the costs of litigation. Plaintiff has not cited any legal authority which would allow the Court to appoint counsel in this case. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to appoint counsel. The Court refers Plaintiff to the District of New Mexico’s Guide for Pro Se Litigants (November 2019) which, on page 6, lists resources for legal representation. Case Management Generally, pro se litigants are held to the same standards of professional responsibility as trained attorneys. It is a pro se litigant’s responsibility to become familiar with and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (the “Local Rules”). Guide for Pro Se Litigants at 4, United States District Court, District of New Mexico (November 2019). The Local Rules, the Guide for Pro Se Litigants and a link to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available on the Court’s website: http://www.nmd.uscourts.gov. Compliance with Rule 11 The Court reminds Plaintiff of his obligations pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.”). Rule 11(b) provides: Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 may subject Plaintiff to sanctions, including monetary penalties and nonmonetary directives. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. HON. JERRY H. RITTER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE