Gary Phillips v. Cassidy Ross, et al.

Phillips · United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division · January 30, 2026 · No. 2:23-cv-00929-TC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied without prejudice Gary Phillips’s motion to appoint counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Cassidy Ross and others. The court concluded that the claims were not sufficiently colorable at that stage, the issues were not complex, and Phillips was able to pursue the matter without appointed counsel, while leaving open the possibility of requesting pro bono counsel later.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division
Writing for the Court
Tena Campbell
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division
Decision date
January 30, 2026
Docket number
2:23-cv-00929-TC
Procedural posture
Plaintiff, a self-represented inmate proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moved for appointment of counsel after the court dismissed several claims but allowed a potentially viable claim against Cassidy Ross to proceed. The district court denied the motion without prejudice.
Standard of review
The court exercises discretion in determining whether to request volunteer counsel for an indigent civil litigant, considering the merits of the claims, the nature of the factual issues, the litigant's ability to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal issues.
Precedential value
unpublished district court memorandum decision and order; nonprecedential
Parties
Gary Phillips v. Cassidy Ross, et al.
Disposition
denied

Topics

civil proceduresection 1983prisoners rightscivil rightsremedies

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rightsprisoner civil rightsappointment of counsel

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a civil litigant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel.
  2. Whether the court should request volunteer counsel to represent Phillips without charge under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Holdings

  1. A civil litigant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel.
  2. The court lacks authority to compel an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent plaintiff in a civil case; under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request an attorney to represent the plaintiff without charge.
  3. Phillips did not establish at this time that volunteer counsel should be requested because his claims might not be colorable, the issues were not complex, and he was able to adequately pursue the matter.

Key quotations

As a civil litigant, [a plaintiff] has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.
It is not enough for Mr. Phillips to argue that he needs help in presenting his strongest possible case, as the same could be said in any case.

Factual background

Gary Phillips is a self-represented inmate at the Utah State Correctional Facility who brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed several of his claims but determined that he had potentially stated a claim against Cassidy Ross. Phillips sought appointment of counsel, asserting that he needed legal assistance, but the court found that his claims might not be colorable, the issues were not complex, and he was not too incapacitated to pursue the matter adequately.

Procedural history

Phillips filed a prisoner civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2026, the court dismissed several claims and found that Phillips had potentially stated a claim against Ross. Phillips then moved for appointed counsel under ECF No. 41. The court denied the motion without prejudice and stated that it would reevaluate the need for counsel as the case developed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…