Blake-Brock v. Sandy City Police Department et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDERdenying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 08/20/2012. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARGIE BROCK,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL
vs.
SANDY CITY POLICE DEPT, et al.,
Case No. 2:10-CV-570 TS
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Margie Brock, filed a pro se complaint under § 1983. 1 Plaintiff now moves for
appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel. 2 However, the Court may in its discretion
appoint counsel for indigent parties. 3 “The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court
that there is sufficient merit to [her] 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 [her] claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised
1
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2008).
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. § 1915(e)(1) (2008); 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).
1
by the claims.’” 5 Considering the above factors, the Court concludes here that, on initial review,
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 (Docket No.
11) is DENIED.
DATED August 20, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
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.
2
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?