Collier v. DeJoy et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CORETTA COLLIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS DeJOY; and VICTORIA POLITO,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-24-1224-D
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
Case 5:24-cv-01224-D Document 9 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 2

2
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 6th day of December, 2024.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-01224-D Document 9 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2