Windham v. Shults, 2:18-cv-62 DB. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20190122g35
Filed: Jan. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL BROOKE C. WELLS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is referred to the undersigned from Judge Dee Benson in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Defendant, Gordon Bolster, moves the court for the appointment of counsel. 2 Mr. Bolster seeks to get a "pro bono Public Defender appointed" to defend him. 3 In support Mr. Bolster notes that his assets and retirement funds were stolen and he is currently living on social security
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL BROOKE C. WELLS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is referred to the undersigned from Judge Dee Benson in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Defendant, Gordon Bolster, moves the court for the appointment of counsel. 2 Mr. Bolster seeks to get a "pro bono Public Defender appointed" to defend him. 3 In support Mr. Bolster notes that his assets and retirement funds were stolen and he is currently living on social security...
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
BROOKE C. WELLS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is referred to the undersigned from Judge Dee Benson in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A).1 Defendant, Gordon Bolster, moves the court for the appointment of counsel.2 Mr. Bolster seeks to get a "pro bono Public Defender appointed" to defend him.3 In support Mr. Bolster notes that his assets and retirement funds were stolen and he is currently living on social security.
The court is sympathetic to Defendant's hardships, however, a party in a civil action has no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel.4 Moreover, this suit is related to a real estate Ponzi scheme and is one of several "claw back" lawsuits concerning the scheme.5 As such there are not any special considerations for the appointment of counsel like in an employment discrimination case.6
Accordingly, Mr. Bolster's motion is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. ECF No. 80.
2. ECF No. 81.
3. Mtn p. 1.
4. See Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547, 1989 WL 16317 (10th Cir. 1989); Bethea v. Crouse, 417 F.2d 504, 505 (10th Cir. 1969) ("We have often said, and it seems to be universally agreed, that no one has a constitutional right to assistance of counsel in the prosecution or defense of a civil action.").
5. See Complaint p. 2, ECF No. 2.
6. See Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1421(10th Cir. 1992) (noting factors that are relevant in determining whether to appoint counsel for a civil litigant in a Title VII action).
Source: Leagle
