Loard v. Sorenson et al

Filing 45

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
Plaintiff,
)
) Case No. 2:11-CV-596 CW
v.
)
) District Judge Clark Waddoups
D. SORENSON et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Robert D. Loard, filed a pro se prisoner civil
rights complaint.1

In an order filed October 29, 2012, the Court

ordered Plaintiff to within thirty days reply to Defendants'
summary-judgment motion.

Plaintiff did not reply.

Instead,

Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint, be appointed pro-bono
counsel, for discovery, and for summary judgment.

Defendants

filed a response to these motions, arguing that they should all
be denied.
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

1

See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2012).

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.S. § 1915(e)(1) (2012); 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).

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
matter.

Thus, the Court denies for now Plaintiff's motion for

appointed counsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for permission to amend his complaint
is DENIED.6

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.

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.
6

(See Docket Entry # 39.)

7

(See Docket Entry # 40.)

2

(3) Plaintiff's motions for discovery are DENIED.8

Once

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
deemed necessary.
(4) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.9

The

motion is essentially duplicative of the remedy requested by the
complaint.
(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

8

(See Docket Entry #s 41 & 42.)

9

(See Docket Entry # 43.)

3