Priest v. Winder et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying without prejudice 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 1/13/17 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL W. PRIEST,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00696-DN-DBP
District Judge David Nuffer
JIM WINDER and OFFICER RANDOLF
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
This case was referred to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 4.) The matter
is presently before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 5.)
Although appointment of counsel is permitted in certain circumstances, a civil plaintiff has
no statutory or constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
“The burden is on the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to
warrant the appointment of counsel.” Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115
(10th Cir. 2004). Courts consider “the merits of a [plaintiff’s] claims, the nature and complexity
of the factual and legal issues, and a [plaintiff’s] ability to investigate the facts and present his
Here, Plaintiff has suggested no basis for the appointment of counsel. He merely filed a twosentence request for counsel, reminding the court that he was proceeding in forma pauperis.
Additionally, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has the ability to present his
claims in a simple and concise manner. Plaintiff described the basic facts underlying his claim
and the individuals he believes are responsible. Nonetheless, the court recognizes that counsel
may subsequently become appropriate or necessary. Accordingly, the court will deny Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel without prejudice.
For the reasons discussed above, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel
without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.)
Dated this 13th day of January 2017.
By the Court:
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 2 of 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?