Ramos v. Tooele Juvenile Court et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM DECISION/ ORDER denying 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba on 5/9/2011. (jtj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL RAMOS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:11-CV-151-CW-SA
v.
TOOELE JUVENILE COURTS, et
al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Ramos’ motion for
appointment of counsel.
(Doc. 20.)
Mr. Ramos is a pro se
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis whose Complaint was filed
on February 17, 2011.
(Doc. 5.)
Because Mr. Ramos is proceeding
pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings; however, Mr.
Ramos’ pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to
comply with procedural rules.
See Murray v. City of Tahlequah,
312 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002).
A plaintiff in a civil case has no statutory or
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel.
See Beaudry
v. Corrections Corp. of America, 331 F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir.
2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1118 (2004); Castner v. Colorado
Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992);
MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988).
In
considering a motion for appointment of counsel, the Court
examines whether a denial of the motion will result in
fundamental unfairness implicating due process.
See Parkhurst v.
Pittsburgh Paints, Inc., 213 Fed. Appx. 747, 748-49 (10th Cir.
2007), cert. denied 128 S. Ct. 162 (2007); Williams v. Meese, 926
F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having carefully considered Mr. Ramos’ motion, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Mr. Ramos’ motion for appointment of counsel (Doc.
#20) is DENIED at this time.
The Court has reached this decision
after considering the circumstances of this case, including the
merits of Mr. Ramos’ claims, the nature and complexity of the
factual and legal issues raised in Mr. Ramos’ Complaint, and Mr.
Ramos’ ability to investigate the facts and present his claims.
See Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th
Cir. 2004); Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir.
1995); Williams, 926 F.2d at 996.
2
However, if, as the matter
develops, it appears that counsel may be necessary or of special
help, the Court will request an attorney to appear pro bono on
Mr. Ramos’ behalf.
DATED this 9th day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
SAMUEL ALBA
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?