Brewer v. Richardson et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS and MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 7 Motion for Protective Order; granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff has until March 15, 2013 to file a response to Defendants' motions to dismiss. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/21/2013. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS &
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
)
) Case No. 1:12-CV-123 TS
v.
)
) District Judge Ted Stewart
JOHN WOOD et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________________
JORDAN BREWER,

Plaintiff, Jordan Brewer, filed a pro se prisoner civil
rights complaint.1

Plaintiff now moves for appointed counsel, a

protective order, and time extensions.
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

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).

complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.'"5
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 motion for

appointed counsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointed
counsel is 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a
protective order is DENIED.7

The motion appears to ask for the

same relief as the Amended Complaint.

To the extent that it asks

for any other type of relief, Plaintiff should bring those claims
in a separate civil-rights complaint.

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.
6

(See Docket Entry # 6.)

7

(See Docket Entry # 7.)

2

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for time
extension are GRANTED.8

Plaintiff has until March 15, 2013 to

file a response to Defendants' motions to dismiss.
DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
CHIEF JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court

8

(See Docket Entry #s 36 & 37.)

3