Opinion
Case No. 1:12-CV-123 TS
02-21-2013
JORDAN BREWER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WOOD et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS &
MEMORANDUM DECISION
District Judge Ted Stewart
Plaintiff, Jordan Brewer, filed a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint. Plaintiff now moves for appointed counsel, a protective order, and time extensions.
See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2012).
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel. However, the Court may in its discretion appoint counsel for indigent inmates. "The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel."
See Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987).
See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(1) (2012); Carper, 54 F.3d at 617; Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991).
McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985).
When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district 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.'" Considering the above factors, the Court concludes here that, at this time, Plaintiff's claims may not be colorable, the issues in this case are not complex, and Plaintiff is not at this time too incapacitated or unable to adequately function in pursuing this matter. Thus, the Court denies for now Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel.
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Williams, 926 F.2d at 996); accord McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838-39.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel is DENIED; however, if, after the case develops further, it appears that counsel may be needed or of specific help, the Court will ask an attorney to appear pro bono on Plaintiff's behalf.
(See Docket Entry # 6.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a protective order is DENIED. The motion appears to ask for the same relief as the Amended Complaint. To the extent that it asks for any other type of relief, Plaintiff should bring those claims in a separate civil-rights complaint.
(See Docket Entry # 7.)
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for time extension are GRANTED. Plaintiff has until March 15, 2013 to file a response to Defendants' motions to dismiss.
(See Docket Entry #s 36 & 37.)
--------
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
CHIEF JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court