In re: Abass Yaya Bamba

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 25-cv-00655-PAB
(Bankr. No. 24-11589)
In re:
Abass Yaya Bamba,
Debtor.
ABASS YAYA BAMBA,
Appellant,
v.
DOMINION FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Appellee.
ORDER
The matters before the Court are appellant’s Letter Re: Request for Appointment
of Pro Bono Counsel [Docket No. 8] 1 and Supplemental Motion to Compel Disclosure of
Legal Fee Arrangements and Ensure Fair Litigation Balance in Support of Request for
Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel [Docket No. 10].
Appellant argues “[t]he appointment of pro bono counsel in this appeal would
prevent undue prejudice and ensure that [his] case is decided based on the law, rather
1 Because appellant is pro se, the Court construes his filings liberally without serving as
his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Although
styled as a letter, appellant’s filing “request[s] that the Court appoint pro bono counsel to
assist [appellant] in this appeal.” Docket No. 8 at 1. Therefore, the Court construed the
appellant’s filing as a motion for appointment of counsel.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 34 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
than on an imbalance of representation.” Docket No. 8 at 1. Appellant additionally
contends that, “[i]f Dominion opposes [his] Pro Bono request, it must first disclose the
source of its legal fees and justify why it should retain full representation.” Docket No.
10 at 2. In response, appellee notes the lack of authority to support appellant’s
requests. Docket No. 14 at 3. Appellee contends “there is no right to the appointment
of counsel in civil cases” and a bankruptcy proceeding is considered civil. Id. Appellee
claims that D.C.COLO.LAttyR 15 governs eligibility for pro bono counsel and that
appellant has failed to provide sufficient information to support such a request. Id. at 4.
Given that appellant previously hired counsel and then terminated the representation,
appellee questions whether appellant has demonstrated an inability to retain counsel
through other means. Id. Further, appellee “opposes the request as it will cause
significant delay with the appeal.” Id. Finally, appellee argues the request for
information about attorney’s fees and costs is “premature” given that the Bankruptcy
Court ruled that it will address those issues once appellant proposes a chapter 13 plan,
which has not occurred yet. Id.
There is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases. See MacCuish v. United
States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988). “The decision whether to appoint counsel in
a civil case is left to the sound discretion of the district court.” Blankenship v. Meachum,
840 F.2d 741, 743 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),
“[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”
“In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider a variety of
factors, including the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues
raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 34 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
legal issues raised by the claims.” Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir.
1991) (evaluating a motion for counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915).
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 15(e)(1), “[t]he following unrepresented parties
are eligible for appointment of pro bono counsel: (A) an unrepresented non-prisoner
who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915; (B) an unrepresented prisoner; and (C) after demonstrating limited financial
means, an unrepresented non-prisoner who has paid any filing fee in full.” Here, the
Court finds that appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) is not warranted. First,
appellant has not shown that he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Second, appellant is not an unrepresented prisoner. Finally, appellant’s motion does
not provided any financial information demonstrating an inability to pay or give security
for fees and costs.
As to appellant’s motion for information regarding the “funds [appellee] used to
pay its legal counsel in this case,” Docket No. 10 at 1, appellant provides no caselaw or
statutory to support his request that the Court order disclosure of appellee’s financial
arrangements. Therefore, the Courts no basis to grant the relief appellant seeks.
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that appellant’s Letter Re: Request for Appointment of Pro Bono
Counsel [Docket No. 8] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that appellant’s Supplemental Motion to Compel Disclosure of Legal
Fee Arrangements and Ensure Fair Litigation Balance in Support of Request for
Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel [Docket No. 10] is DENIED.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 34 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
Dated: April 15, 2025
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
____________________	__ ______
Case No. 1:25-cv-00655-PAB Document 34 filed 04/15/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4