Hughes v. Smith et al, No. 2:2023cv00473 - Document 12 (D. Utah 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER: Denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The court Denies Mr. Hughes Motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 11/20/2023. (kpf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hughes v. Smith et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION TARRELL HUGHES, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. NO. 11) Plaintiff, v. MEGAN SMITH, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00473 Defendants. District Judge David Barlow Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg Plaintiff Tarrell Hughes, proceeding in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee) and without an attorney, filed this action against Megan Smith, a U.S. Marshal identified only as “Andy,” and other unnamed defendants on July 21, 2023. 1 Mr. Hughes now moves for appointment of counsel. 2 Because Mr. Hughes does not provide a reason for his request, the motion is denied without prejudice. While defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to representation by an attorney, 3 “[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case.” 4 Appointment of counsel in civil cases is left to the court’s discretion. 5 Indigent parties in civil cases may 1 (See Compl., Doc. No. 5.) 2 (Mot. for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. No. 11.) 3 See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Fed. R. Crim. P. 44. 4 Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989). 5 Shabazz v. Askins, 14 F.3d 533, 535 (10th Cir. 1994). 1 Dockets.Justia.com apply for the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which allows a court to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” The applicant has the burden to convince the court his/her/their claim has enough merit to warrant appointment of counsel. 6 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.” 7 Mr. Hughes asks the court to appoint counsel but states no reason or basis for the request, other than that he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As outlined above, this is insufficient to warrant appointment of counsel in a civil case. Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Hughes’ motion for appointment of counsel 8 without prejudice. 9 DATED this 20th day of November, 2023. BY THE COURT: _____________________________ Daphne A. Oberg United States Magistrate Judge 6 McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). 7 Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 (Doc. No. 11.) 9 Because the motion is denied without prejudice, Mr. Hughes can refile the motion explaining why, under the factors outlined above, his case warrants the appointment of counsel. 2
]]>
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.
