Sorg v. Marcou et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 4 Motion for Service of Process ; denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The court further orders that Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, as described in this order, by May 26, 2013, or risk dismissal of his action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 04/25/2013. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
JOHN ADAM SORG,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
v.
Case No. 2:13-cv-00255-DAK-DBP
JOE MARCOU, et al.,
District Judge Dale A. Kimball
Defendants.
I.
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
INTRODUCTION
This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Docket No. 6.)
Plaintiff, John Adam Sorg, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against Defendants Joe Marcou,
Ricky Marcou, David Marcou, and Steve Perrine. (Dkt. No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Paul M.
Warner granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff
now moves for service of process (Dkt. No. 4), and for appointed counsel (Dkt. No. 5). For the
reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions, and ORDERS Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.
II.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Civil litigants lack a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d
1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006). However, in its discretion, a district court “may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Johnson, 466 F.3d at
1217. The party requesting counsel bears the burden “to convince the court that there is
Page 1 of 3
sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel.” McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753
F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the court should
consider numerous 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.” Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)
(citation omitted).
After reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, and applying the law above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff failed to articulate a discernible
legal claim. He failed to succinctly summarize the factual issues giving rise to his claims. These
shortcomings make it difficult for the Court to analyze the complexity involved in the claims,
and Plaintiff’s ability to present the claims.
III.
PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
In reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court notes several deficiencies. (Dkt. No. 3.) The
hand-written complaint is, at times, illegible. The complaint lacks a statement that demonstrates
jurisdiction before this Court is appropriate. It describes allegations against individuals Plaintiff
failed to name as Defendants.
Moreover, the complaint fails to list specific legal causes of action. Instead, the over onehundred page complaint contains numerous, unrelated grievances against law enforcement and
mental health officials, and other individuals who allegedly harassed Plaintiff. The complaint
lacks clear demands. Instead, it asks the Court to issue unspecified injunctions against
Defendants to correct their “misgivings.” (Dkt. Nos. 3 at 2; 3-1 at 8.)
Such inadequacies support sua sponte dismissal. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court prefers to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to remedy the
Page 2 of 3
inadequacies by amending his complaint. See McKinney v. State of Okla., Dep’t of Human
Serv., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint. The amended
complaint should be legible. It should set forth “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). It should also list all parties involved. It should
include a “short and plain statement” of the claim(s) showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id.
8(a)(2). That is, Plaintiff should list all his legal causes of action, and provide clear statements
that show he is entitled to relief on those causes of action. Finally, Plaintiff should list specific
demands for the relief he seeks. Id. 8(a)(3). The Court warns Plaintiff that if he fails to comply
with this order, it will result in this Court recommending his complaint be dismissed.
IV.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
Because the Court orders Plaintiff to amend his complaint, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion for service of process. (Dkt. No. 4.) When Plaintiff submits his amended complaint, he
may renew his motion for service of process.
V.
ORDERS
For the reasons discussed above, the Court issues the following ORDERS:
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for service of process without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 5.)
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 4.)
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, as described above, by May 26,
2013, or risk dismissal of his action.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2013.
By the Court:
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 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?