Shaun Lefleur v. Board of County Commissioners of Otero County; Andrea Stafford; and VitalCore Health Strategies

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO SHAUN LEFLEUR,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 24-921 MIS/SCY

BOARD OFM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OTERO COUNTY; ANDREA STAFFORD; and VITALCORE HEALTH STRATEGIES,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel, filed May 26, 2026. Doc. 36. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis and who is incarcerated in Northern New Mexico Detention facility, asks that he be appointed counsel to assist with his Section 1983 lawsuit for inadequate medical care. Id. Having reviewed the docket and the relevant law, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied. “Courts are not authorized to appoint counsel in § 1983 cases; instead, courts can only ‘request’ an attorney to take the case” on a pro bono basis. Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 397 (10th Cir. 2016); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (regarding in forma pauperis cases, “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”). “The decision to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the district court.” Baker v. Simmons, 65 Fed. App’x 231, 238 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001)). In determining whether to request that an attorney take the case, the Court should consider several factors: “the merits of the claims, the nature of the claims, [the inmate’s] ability to present the claims, and the complexity of the issues.” Rachel, 820 F.3d at 397. The Court has reviewed the complaint and subsequent filings in light of the foregoing factors. At this time, Plaintiff appears to understand the issues in the case and to be representing himself in an intelligent and capable manner. See Lucero v. Gunter, 52 F.3d 874, 878 (10th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff argues that his case involved complex medical issues such that counsel is needed. Doc. 36 at 2. However, Plaintiff's complaint and supplements reveal that Plaintiff is sufficiently capable of representing his interests in this matter. Indeed, upon initial screening, the Court found Plaintiff’s complaint survived screening as to Defendant Stafford, but that it failed to state a claim as to Defendants Board and Vitalcore. Doc. 30. The Court thus allowed Plaintiff to file a supplement to his complaint, id. at 4, which he did, fixing the deficiencies, Doc. 32. Plaintiff also asserts that counsel would assist the Court in evaluating his claims. Doc. 36 at 3. However, at this time, a Martinez report can likewise assist the Court. See Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 1987) (“Under the Martinez procedure, the district judge or a United States magistrate to whom the matter has been referred will direct prison officials to respond in writing to the various allegations, supporting their response by affidavits and copies of internal disciplinary rules and reports. The purpose of the Martinez report is to ascertain whether there is a factual as well as a legal basis for the prisoner’s claim”); see also Doc. 30 (screening order, referring this case to the Magistrate Judge to conduct a Martinez investigation). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 36) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mire UNITED,STATES MAGIST JUDGE