United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW, U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Petitioner commenced this action in August 2019,
seeking the release of all persons assigned to the Sexual
Predator Treatment Program (SPTP). On the same day, the clerk
of the court issued a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) to
petitioner advising him that his petition was not submitted
on a form, as required by the rules of the Court, and that he
had failed to submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or
the $5.00 filing fee.
the time allowed to correct these deficiencies, petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed this matter on
September 24, 2019. However, on October 28, 2019, the Court
granted petitioner's request to reopen this matter. Since
that time, petitioner has submitted two motions to appoint
counsel, a demand for jury trial, a supplement to the
petition, an affidavit, a combined motion for preliminary
injunction and a temporary restraining order, and a motion
for joinder. The Court has examined these pleadings and
enters the following order.
petitioner has not yet submitted the petition on forms, nor
has he submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or
paid the filing fee. Petitioner will be given a new deadline
for correcting these deficiencies, and he if fails to comply,
the Court will consider whether this matter should be
the Court denies petitioner's motions to appoint counsel.
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of
counsel in a civil matter. Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d
613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Durre v.
Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989).
Rather, the decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil
action lies in the discretion of the district court.
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996
(10th Cir. 1991). The party seeking the
appointment of counsel has the burden to convince the court
that the claims presented have sufficient merit to warrant
the appointment of counsel. Steffey v. Orman, 461
F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 2016)(citing Hill
v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115
(10th Cir. 2004)). It is not enough “that
having counsel appointed would have assisted [the movant] in
presenting his strongest possible case, [as] the same could
be said in any case.” Steffey, 461 F.3d at
1223 (citing Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979
(10th Cir. 1995)). At this point, petitioner has
provided no clear ground for relief regarding the proposed
dissolution of the SPTP, and the Court finds no basis to
appoint counsel in this matter.
the Court denies petitioner's motion for a preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order. To obtain this
relief, a moving party must show (1) a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if the relief
is denied; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that
the relief would cause to the opposing party; and (4) the
relief, if granted, would not adversely affect the public
interest. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla,
L.L.C., 500 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir. 2007).
Because relief of this type is an extraordinary remedy, the
right to relief “must be clear and unequivocal.”
Greater Yellowstone Coal v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250,
1256 (10th Cir. 2003). The materials he submits
are not related to his claim concerning the SPTP, and it
appears this material was docketed in all of petitioner's
the Court denies petitioner's motion for joinder of this
action with other actions filed by him. The Court construes
this request to seek the consolidation of this petition with
other actions filed by the petitioner.
Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where
actions before the Court involve a common question of law or
fact, the court may join the matters for hearing or trial,
consolidate them, or issue any appropriate orders to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a).
present petition is a challenge to the SPTP and does not
appear to be so closely related to the petitioner's other
filings that joinder would aid in the efficient development
and resolution of petitioner's claims.
THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED petitioner is granted to and
including December 27, 2019, to submit his
habeas corpus petition on forms and to submit either a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or the $5.00 filing
fee. The clerk of the court shall transmit the appropriate
form to petitioner. If petitioner fails to comply with this
order, his petition may be dismissed without prejudice and
without additional notice.
FURTHER ORDERED petitioner's motions to appoint counsel
(Docs. 7 and 10), his motion for a preliminary injunction and
for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 12) and his motion
for joinder (Doc. 13) are denied.
IS SO ORDERED.