Palesh v. US Department of Veteran Affairs
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 5 Motion for Service of Process. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/27/2015. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR OFFICIAL SERVICE OF
PROCESS AND MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
MARK R. PALESH,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:15-CV-201 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Official Service of Process and
Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny both
Motions.
On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff submitted his Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis, finding that Plaintiff had the ability to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff did pay the filing fee
and his Complaint was lodged on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff now seeks service of process and the
appointment of counsel.
As stated, Plaintiff was denied permission to proceed in forma pauperis. This denial
removes the privilege of filing a case without paying the filing fee and also shifts the
responsibility for service of process back to Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s
Motion for Official Service of Process. Plaintiff must effect service in accordance with Rule 4 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1
Turning to Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the Court notes that Plaintiff
has no constitutional right to counsel. 1 The Court may appoint counsel in its discretion. When
deciding whether to appoint 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.’” 2
Considering these factors, the Court declines to appoint counsel at this time. At this
stage, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s claims are meritorious. Plaintiff’s claims are not complex,
either factually or legally. Finally, it appears that Plaintiff has the ability to present his claims.
Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion, but may revisit this issue in the future.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Official Service of Process and Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Docket Nos. 4 and 5) are DENIED.
DATED this 27th day of April, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
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
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Williams v. Meese,
926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991)).
2
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?