Summary
This memorandum decision and order addresses the plaintiff's pro se motion to appoint counsel in a civil lawsuit against the Utah Transit Authority Police Department and several officers. The court explains that while criminal defendants have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, civil litigants do not, and appointment is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). After evaluating the merits, complexity, and plaintiff's ability to present his claims, the court finds the request insufficiently justified and denies the motion without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court must appoint counsel in a civil case where the plaintiff is indigent
Holdings
- The court has no constitutional duty to appoint counsel in a civil case and may deny appointment when the plaintiff does not satisfy the statutory burden of showing merit and complexity.
Key quotations
““there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case.”” (1)
“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.”” (2)
Factual background
Plaintiff Daniel D. Thomas filed the action without an attorney and sought appointment of counsel, claiming inability to afford counsel.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed pro se civil action and moved for appointment of counsel; the district court denied the motion without prejudice.
Remand instructions
The plaintiff may file a new motion for appointment of counsel if he can demonstrate the merits of his claims and the complexity of the issues.