-SA Ramos v. Tooele Juvenile Court et al, No. 2:2011cv00151 - Document 22 (D. Utah 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION/ ORDER denying 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba on 5/9/2011. (jtj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION MICHAEL RAMOS, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-CV-151-CW-SA v. TOOELE JUVENILE COURTS, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Ramos motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 20.) Mr. Ramos is a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis whose Complaint was filed on February 17, 2011. (Doc. 5.) Because Mr. Ramos is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings; however, Mr. Ramos pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to comply with procedural rules. See Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff in a civil case has no statutory or constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. See Beaudry v. Corrections Corp. of America, 331 F.3d 1164, 1169 (10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1118 (2004); Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1420 (10th Cir. 1992); MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988). In considering a motion for appointment of counsel, the Court examines whether a denial of the motion will result in fundamental unfairness implicating due process. See Parkhurst v. Pittsburgh Paints, Inc., 213 Fed. Appx. 747, 748-49 (10th Cir. 2007), cert. denied 128 S. Ct. 162 (2007); Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). Having carefully considered Mr. Ramos motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Ramos motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #20) is DENIED at this time. The Court has reached this decision after considering the circumstances of this case, including the merits of Mr. Ramos claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues raised in Mr. Ramos Complaint, and Mr. Ramos ability to investigate the facts and present his claims. See Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004); Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995); Williams, 926 F.2d at 996. 2 However, if, as the matter develops, it appears that counsel may be necessary or of special help, the Court will request an attorney to appear pro bono on Mr. Ramos behalf. DATED this 9th day of May, 2011. BY THE COURT: SAMUEL ALBA United States Magistrate Judge 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.