Bacon v. Barker

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

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, once again asks the court for the appointment of counsel.! Plaintiff refers the court to a sealed memorandum that was filed by a federal defender in case no 2:21-cr-341 HCN. Having reviewed that case, the court finds no basis for the appointment of counsel in the instant matter. Moreover, Plaintiff's unsubstantiated claims that he is unlearned or seriously needing help, do not provide a basis for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff continues to fail to meet the burden of convincing the “court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel.”” The motion therefore is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18 March 2024.

Dusiif-B Pyad United Stafes Mapistrate Judge

‘ECF No. 59. ? Hill vy. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004).