Lujan v. Dreis et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 6 Motion for Service of Process. ; denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 02/16/10. (mas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION _______________________________________________________________ MICHAEL V. LUJAN, Plaintiff, v. FRED DREIS et al., ) ) ) ) )
)
) District Judge Ted Stewart ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS Case No. 2:09-CV-198 TS

Plaintiff, Michael V. Lujan, has filed a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint.1 Plaintiff's application to proceed in Plaintiff now moves for

forma pauperis has been granted.

appointed counsel and service of process. The Court first considers the motions 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

1

S e e 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2010).

S e e Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Bee v. Utah S t a t e Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987). S e e 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(1) (2010); Carper, 54 F.3d at 617; Williams v . Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991).
4 3

2

M c C a r t h y v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985).

the claims, the litigant's ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.'" 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 (1) it is not clear at this point that Plaintiff has asserted a colorable claim; (2) the issues in this case are not complex; and (3) Plaintiff is not incapacitated or unable to adequately function in pursuing this matter. Thus, the Court denies for now

Plaintiff's motions for appointed counsel. Next, the Court denies for now Plaintiff's motion for service of process. The Court has yet to make a final

determination whether to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint or order it to be served upon Defendants. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A (2010).

Plaintiff need do nothing further to trigger this process. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's requests for appointed counsel are DENIED, (see File Entry #s 5, 17, & 22); however, if it later appears that counsel may be needed or of specific help, the Court may ask an attorney to appear pro bono on Plaintiff's behalf. motions of this nature are necessary. No further

2

(2) Plaintiff's motion for service of process is DENIED, (see File Entry # 6); however, if, upon further review, it appears that this case has merit and states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court may order service of process. DATED this 16th day of February, 2009. BY THE COURT:

____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge

3