Soto v. State of Utah et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER: denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is further ordered that, within thirty days, Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants summary judgment motion. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/8/2013. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS, &
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
)
) Case No. 2:12-CV-668 TS
v.
)
) District Judge Ted Stewart
DEPUTY WARDEN IRONS et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________________
JOSE SOTO,

Plaintiff, Jose Soto, filed a pro se prisoner civil rights
complaint.1

Plaintiff now moves for appointed counsel.

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
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
1

See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2013).

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) (2013); Carper, 54 F.3d at 617; Williams
v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991).
4

5

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); accord McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838-39.

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 motions for

appointed counsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for appointed
counsel are DENIED6; 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.

No further motions of this nature are

necessary.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty days, Plaintiff
shall respond to Defendants' summary-judgment motion.7
DATED this 8th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
CHIEF JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court

6

(See Docket Entry #s 9 & 17.)

7

(See Docket Entry # 20.)

2