Loard v. Sorenson et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 39 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 40 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs motions for discovery are DENIED. Plaintiff must show cause within thirty days why this case should not be dismissed because he failed to obey the Courts October 29, 2012 order to within thirty days reply to Defendants summary judgment motion. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 1/22/2013. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ROBERT D. LOARD,
) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS, &
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
) Case No. 2:11-CV-596 CW
) District Judge Clark Waddoups
D. SORENSON et al.,
Plaintiff, Robert D. Loard, filed a pro se prisoner civil
In an order filed October 29, 2012, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to within thirty days reply to Defendants'
Plaintiff did not reply.
Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint, be appointed pro-bono
counsel, for discovery, and for summary judgment.
filed a response to these motions, arguing that they should all
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
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).
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
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:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for permission to amend his complaint
The very terse motion provides no new information to
be added to an amended complaint.
(2) Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel is DENIED7;
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.
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 # 39.)
(See Docket Entry # 40.)
(3) Plaintiff's motions for discovery are DENIED.8
Plaintiff responds appropriately to Defendants' summary-judgment
motion as ordered by the Court, the Court will further evaluate
the necessity for discovery and order discovery on its own if
(4) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.9
motion is essentially duplicative of the remedy requested by the
(5) Plaintiff must show cause within thirty days why this
case should not be dismissed because he failed to obey the
Court's October 29, 2012 order to within thirty days reply to
Defendants' summary-judgment motion.
DATED this 22nd day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Court
(See Docket Entry #s 41 & 42.)
(See Docket Entry # 43.)
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?