Rowland v. Andresen

D. Utah

Rowland v. Andresen

DecidedFebruary 3, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-00280

StatusUnknown

This text of Rowland v. Andresen (Rowland v. Andresen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rowland v. Andresen, (D. Utah 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

DWAYNE TAYLOR ROWLAND, JR. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT Plaintiff, COUNSEL AND MOTION TO STAY v. Case No. 2:23CV00280-DAK SERGEANT McMURPHY et al., Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendants.

Mr. Rowland has filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Motion to Stay This Action.1 Because this is a civil case, Mr. Rowland has no constitutional right to counsel.2 The court, however, may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for indigent inmates.3 "The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel."4 When deciding whether to appoint counsel, a variety of factors should be considered, "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.”5 Considering these factors, the court concludes that (1) it is not clear thus far that Mr. Rowland has asserted a colorable claim; (2) the issues here are not complex; and (3) Mr. Rowland is not necessarily unable to adequately

1 ECF Nos. 6 & 9, respectively. 2 See Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1985). 3 See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(l) (2021); Shabazz v. Askins, 14 F.3d 533, 535 (10th Cir. 1994). 4 McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). 5 Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). function to pursue this matter. Thus, the court denies for now Mr. Rowland’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Mr. Rowland’s Motion to Stay This Action is moot, as he requested that the action be stayed until January 22, 2025, and that date has now passed. The court will screen Mr. Rowland’s Amended Complaint in due course. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Rowland’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 6] is DENIED, and his Motion to Stay This Action [ECF No. 9] is MOOT. DATED this 3 day of February 2025. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

DWAYNE TAYLOR ROWLAND, JR. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT Plaintiff, COUNSEL AND MOTION TO STAY v. Case No. 2:23CV00280-DAK SERGEANT McMURPHY et al., Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendants.

Mr. Rowland has filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Motion to Stay This Action.1 Because this is a civil case, Mr. Rowland has no constitutional right to counsel.2 The court, however, may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for indigent inmates.3 "The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel."4 When deciding whether to appoint counsel, a variety of factors should be considered, "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.”5 Considering these factors, the court concludes that (1) it is not clear thus far that Mr. Rowland has asserted a colorable claim; (2) the issues here are not complex; and (3) Mr. Rowland is not necessarily unable to adequately

1 ECF Nos. 6 & 9, respectively. 2 See Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1985). 3 See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(l) (2021); Shabazz v. Askins, 14 F.3d 533, 535 (10th Cir. 1994). 4 McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). 5 Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). function to pursue this matter. Thus, the court denies for now Mr. Rowland’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Mr. Rowland’s Motion to Stay This Action is moot, as he requested that the action be stayed until January 22, 2025, and that date has now passed. The court will screen Mr. Rowland’s Amended Complaint in due course. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Rowland’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 6] is DENIED, and his Motion to Stay This Action [ECF No. 9] is MOOT. DATED this 3 day of February 2025. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rowland v. Andresen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowland-v-andresen-utd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack