Collier v. DeJoy

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CORETTA COLLIER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1224-D ) LOUIS DeJOY; and VICTORIA POLITO, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2]. On November 27, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5], recommending that Plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied. Thereafter, Plaintiff paid the filing fee in full [Doc. No. 6]. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] as MOOT. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Appointed Attorney [Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff asserts no authority for such appointment. The Court notes that “a civil litigant … does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Davis v. Clifford, 825 F.3d 1131, 1137 n.3 (10th Cir. 2016); Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989) (“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case.”). Although the Court has discretion to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in proceedings brought in forma pauperis, the record reflects that Plaintiff has paid all fees associated with filing this action [Doc. No. 6]. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for a Court Appointed Attorney [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6" day of December, 2024.

\ ty Q □□□ TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge