Brewer v. Richardson et al
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
) Case No. 1:12-CV-123 TS
) District Judge Ted Stewart
JOHN WOOD et al.,
Plaintiff, Jordan Brewer, filed a pro se prisoner civil
Plaintiff now moves for appointed counsel, a
protective order, and time extensions.
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel.2
the Court may in its discretion appoint counsel for indigent
"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
See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2012).
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).
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).
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
Thus, the Court denies for now Plaintiff's motion for
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
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.
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.
(See Docket Entry # 6.)
(See Docket Entry # 7.)
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
(See Docket Entry #s 36 & 37.)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?