Coats v. State of Utah et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 3 Motion for Service of Process ; denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Nuffer on 12/19/11. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
BECKY L. COATS,
STATE OF UTAH, UTAH DEPARTMENT
OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,
MEMORANDUM DECISION and
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND
FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
Case No. 2:11-cv-755-DB-DN
District Judge Dee Benson
Magistrate Judge David Nuffer
District Judge Dee Benson referred this matter to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B).1 In August 2011, Plaintiff Becky L. Coats filed a pro se civil rights complaint and
paid the appropriate filing fee.2 More recently, Coats filed a motion to appoint counsel and a
motion for service of process.3 For the reasons outlined below, the court DENIES the motions
for appointment of counsel and service of process.
Each motion Coats signed and filed, it states: “The court has already approved my [the
plaintiff’s] application to file the matter in forma pauperis.”4 However, this statement is not true.
The court has not approved Coats in forma pauperis application. She paid the filing fee when
filing her complaint. Accordingly, the court cannot grant her motions under the in forma
pauperis provisions set out in 28 U.S.C § 1915.
Order Referring Case, docket no. 4, filed Dec. 15, 2011.
See Complaint, docket no. 1, filed Aug. 19, 2011.
Motion to Appoint Counsel, docket no. 2, filed Dec. 14, 2011; Motion for Service of Process, docket no. 3, filed
Dec. 14, 2011.
Furthermore, as a civil litigant, Coats has no constitutional right to counsel.5 “The
burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to
warrant the appointment of counsel.”6 When deciding whether to appoint counsel, a 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.'"7 In considering these factors and construing Coats’s
complaint liberally,8 the court finds that (1) at this stage, it is uncertain whether Plaintiff has
asserted a colorable claim; (2) based upon the complaint, the court finds that this case does not
appear to involve complex factual or legal issues; and (3) Coats is not incapacitated or otherwise
unable to adequately pursue this matter. Moreover, the court notes that Coats paid the filing fee
for this case. Thus, it appears Coats has the resources to effect service of process on Defendants.
See Moomchi v. Univ. of N.M., no. 95-2140, 1995 WL 736292 *3 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 1995) (unpublished); Carper v.
DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987).
McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985).
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Williams, 926 F.2d at 996).
See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating court must construe pro se pleadings liberally to
a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel9 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for service of process10 is DENIED and
Coats is directed to serve Defendants in a timely manner pursuant to the Federal Rules.
Dated this 19th day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT
Magistrate Judge David Nuffer
Docket no. 2.
Docket no. 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?