Luesse v. Patterson et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 5 Motion for Service of Process (Prisoner) ; denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 07/20/2013. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
MICHAEL LUESSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM DECISION &
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
Case No. 2:13-CV-114 DN
District Judge David Nuffer
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________________
)
TOM PATTERSON et al.,
Plaintiff, Michael Luesse, has filed a pro se prisoner civil
rights complaint.1
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis has been granted.
Plaintiff now moves for appointed
counsel and service of process.
The Court first considers the motion 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
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
McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985).
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 (1)
it is not clear at this point that Plaintiff has asserted a
colorable claim; (2) the issues in this case are not complex; and
(3) Plaintiff is not incapacitated or unable to adequately
function in pursuing this matter.
Thus, the Court denies for now
Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel.
Next, the Court denies for now Plaintiff's motion for
service of process.
The Court has yet to make a final
determination whether to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint or order
it to be served upon Defendants.6
Plaintiff need do nothing
further to trigger this process.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's request for appointed counsel is DENIED7;
however, if it later appears that counsel may be needed or of
specific help, the Court may ask an attorney to appear pro bono
on Plaintiff's behalf.
No further motions of this nature are
necessary.
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 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A (2013).
7
(See Docket Entry # 6.)
2
(2) Plaintiff's motion for service of process is DENIED8
however, if, upon further review, it appears that this case has
merit and states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the
Court may order service of process.
DATED this 20th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
DAVID NUFFER
United States District Judge
8
(See Docket Entry # 5.)
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?