Morales v. United States Postal

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 16 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHARLES R. MORALES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-3200
(D.C. No. 97-4200-KHV)
UNITED STATES POSTAL (D. Kan.)
SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Charles Morales, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
appointment of counsel in his employment discrimination action. We exercise
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Morales filed an action against the United States Postal Service and the
Postmaster General on August 15, 1997, claiming he had been discharged on
August 16, 1994, in violation of Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and asked for appointment of
counsel. The magistrate judge denied his request on November 17, 1997, and
Morales continued to pursue the case pro se. He filed a motion for summary
judgment and oppositions to defendants’ dispositive motions, and he appeared at a
pretrial conference. The district court dismissed part of Morales’ claims, but
allowed two claims to proceed to trial. Morales represented himself at a jury
trial. One claim under the Rehabilitation Act was dismissed at the conclusion of
Morales’ case-in-chief. The jury found in favor of defendants on the remaining
Title VII retaliation claim.
Morales contends on appeal the district court erred in denying his
application for appointment of counsel. We review a denial of appointment of
counsel in a civil case for abuse of discretion. Rucks v. Boergermann , 57 F.3d
978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). The district court should consider the merits of the
litigation, the factual issues raised, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and
the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. When the plaintiff is indigent,
the district court has discretion to appoint counsel when, under the totality of
-2-
circumstances, the denial of counsel would result in a fundamentally unfair
proceeding. See McCarthy v. Weinberg , 753 F.2d 836, 839-40 (10th Cir. 1985).
The record does not contain Morales’ application for appointment of
counsel, the magistrate’s order denying the application, or a copy of the trial
transcript. In the absence of the magistrate’s order, we will not assume the
magistrate failed to consider the required factors in exercising its discretion. In
any event, based on our review of the limited record, we are not convinced the
denial of counsel resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceedings. In particular,
the pleadings filed by Morales indicate he had a “firm grasp of the fundamental
issues in his case,” Rucks , 57 F.3d at 979, and was able to present those issues to
the district court in a coherent fashion. Similarly, the orders demonstrate the
court understood and gave fair consideration to Morales’ claims. There is no
indication of any special circumstances on the part of Morales (e.g., speech
impediment, limited mobility, difficulty in communicating, etc.) that would have
warranted appointment of counsel.
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-