Hughes v. Smith

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

TARRELL HUGHES, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, PREJUDICE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (DOC. NO. 11)

MEGAN SMITH, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00473

Defendants. District Judge David Barlow

Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

Plaintiff Tarrell Hughes, proceeding in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee) and without an attorney, filed this action against Megan Smith, a U.S. Marshal identified only as “Andy,” and other unnamed defendants on July 21, 2023.1 Mr. Hughes now moves for appointment of counsel.2 Because Mr. Hughes does not provide a reason for his request, the motion is denied without prejudice. While defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to representation by an attorney,3 “[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case.”4 Appointment of counsel in civil cases is left to the court’s discretion.5 Indigent parties in civil cases may

1 (See Compl., Doc. No. 5.) 2 (Mot. for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. No. 11.) 3 See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Fed. R. Crim. P. 44. 4 Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989). 5 Shabazz v. Askins, 14 F.3d 533, 535 (10th Cir. 1994). apply for the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which allows a court to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” The applicant has the burden to convince the court his/her/their claim has enough merit to warrant appointment of counsel.© 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 [the] claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.”/ Mr. Hughes asks the court to appoint counsel but states no reason or basis for the request, other than that he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As outlined above, this is insufficient to warrant appointment of counsel in a civil case. Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Hughes’ motion for appointment of counsel® without prejudice.” DATED this 20th day of November, 2023. BY THE COURT:

United States Magistrate Judge

6 McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). 7 Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 (Doc. No. 11.) ° Because the motion is denied without prejudice, Mr. Hughes can refile the motion explaining why, under the factors outlined above, his case warrants the appointment of counsel.