Fowler v. McDougal et al, No. 2:2016cv00163 - Document 9 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/6/2016. (eat)

Download PDF
Fowler v. McDougal et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION BONNIE R. FOWLER, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:16-cv-00163 v. MARK R. McDOUGAL, Mark R. McDOUGAL & ASSOCIATES, DON R. SCHOW, BRENT WAMSLEY, DOUGLAS C. McDOUGAL, United States District Court Judge Dale Kimball Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead Defendants. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead by District Judge Dale A. Kimball pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (Docket Number 5). Currently pending before this court is Plaintiff Bonnie R. Fowler’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion For Appointment of Counsel (Docket Number 4).1 A plaintiff in a civil case has no statutory or constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). When deciding whether to appoint counsel, a Court should consider 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 his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.’” Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Williams, 926 F.2d at 996). Applying these factors to Plaintiff’s case, the Court concludes: (1) it is not yet clear 1 The court previously approved Plaintiff’s application to file the matter in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket Number 2). Dockets.Justia.com whether Plaintiff has asserted colorable claims, (2) the issues involved are not overly complex, and (3) Plaintiff is able to adequately present her claims as evidenced by the content of her complaint in which she identifies defendants, sets forth and cites specific causes of action and explains her injury and request for relief. As a result, at this time the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Number 2). However, as the matter develops, if it appears that counsel may be necessary or of special assistance, the Court may exercise its discretion to appoint an attorney to represent Plaintiff pro bono. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 6th day of April, 2016. ____________________________________ Dustin Pead U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge 2 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.