Sanchez v. Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/15/2014. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
LUIS I. SANCHEZ,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff,
v.
UNIFIED POLICE DEPARTMENT OF
GREATER SALT LAKE, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-CV-900 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Luis Sanchez’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and filed this action on
December 10, 2014. Defendant brings a number of claims against Unified Police Department
and certain police officers. Plaintiff now seeks the appointment of counsel.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel. 1 However, the Court may in its discretion
appoint counsel. 2 “The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient
merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel.” 3 When deciding whether to appoint

1

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).
2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

3

McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985).

counsel, the Court considers 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.’” 4
Considering the above factors, the Court concludes appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time. On initial review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims may not be
meritorious, the factual issues are relatively straightforward, Plaintiff has the ability to present
his claims, and the legal issues are not complex. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for
appointed counsel at this time.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 4) is
DENIED.
DATED this 15th day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

4

Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Williams v. Meese,
926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991)).
2