Bacon v. Barker

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Michael A. Bacon, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Vv. Case No. 2:21-cv-760 HCN DBP Jacob Barker, et al. Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Defendants. Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, asks the court to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff notes he is going to be sent to a different federal facility so it will be difficult to receive mail. Thus, it is “easier to have an attorney help.” Mtn. p. 1. This is not a sufficient reason for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has already requested the appointment of counsel three prior times and each time has failed to meet the burden 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). Nothing has changed and Plaintiff still fails to meet this burden. Accordingly, Plaintiffs third motion for counsel is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 12 July 2023.

Dusiif-B Pyad United Stafes Mapistrate Judge