Hansen v. Bigelow et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING MOTION and MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's motions for appointed counsel are DENIED; however, if after, the case develops further, it appears that counsel may be needed or of specific help, the Court will ask an attorney to appear pro bono on Plaintiffs behalf. The Court will accept no further motions for appointed counsel. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 3/7/2013. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
TIMOTHY HANSEN,

) ORDER DENYING MOTION &
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
)
) Case No. 1:12-CV-19 CW
v.
)
) District Judge Clark Waddoups
STEVEN TURLEY et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Timothy Hansen, filed a pro se prisoner civil

rights complaint.1

Plaintiff now moves for appointed counsel.

Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel.2

However,

the Court may in its discretion appoint counsel for indigent
inmates.3

"The burden is upon the applicant to convince the

court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the
appointment of counsel."4
When deciding 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 legal issues raised by the claims.'"5
1

See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2012).

2
See Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Bee v. Utah
State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987).
3

See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(1) (2012); Carper, 54 F.3d at 617; Williams
v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991).
4

McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985).

5

Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting
Williams, 926 F.2d at 996); accord McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838-39.

Considering the above factors, the Court concludes here that, at
this time, Plaintiff's claims may not be colorable, the issues in
this case are not complex, and Plaintiff is not at this time too
incapacitated or unable to adequately function in pursuing this
matter.

Thus, the Court denies for now Plaintiff's motions for

appointed counsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for appointed
counsel are DENIED6; however, if, after the case develops
further, it appears that counsel may be needed or of specific
help, the Court will ask an attorney to appear pro bono on
Plaintiff's behalf.

The Court will accept no further motions for

appointed counsel.
DATED this 7th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Court

6

(See Docket Entry #s 5, 10 & 29.)

2