United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
N. Parrish District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge
11, 2018, the court granted Ms. Barker's request to
proceed in forma pauperis.Plaintiff now seeks the
appointment of counsel. A party in a civil action has no
constitutional right to appointment of counsel. After reviewing
Plaintiff's motion and the allegations in the case, the
court will deny the motion.
brings a Title VII case alleging violations of her rights
when Defendants “intentionally chose to create and
foster a hostile work environment.” Ms. Barker also
asserts violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. A litigant asserting employment discrimination claims
has no constitutional right or statutory right to appointed
counsel. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, however, provides that the district court may, in
its discretion, appoint counsel for a plaintiff in an
employment discrimination action.” The Tenth Circuit
has identified four factors to consider when determining
whether to appoint counsel in a Title VII case. “Before
counsel may be appointed, a plaintiff must make affirmative
showings of (1) financial inability to pay for counsel, (2)
diligence in attempting to secure counsel and (3)
meritorious allegations of
discrimination.” A fourth factor, the plaintiffs capacity
to present the case without counsel, is to be considered in
close cases. Notwithstanding Congress's
“special … concern with legal representation in
Title VII actions” Plaintiff has failed to make the
required affirmative showings. For example, there is no
record of Plaintiff attempting to secure counsel and even if
those attempts had been made, it appears Plaintiff has the
capacity to present the case adequately without counsel
because she is an experienced litigant.
Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED and
Plaintiff is instructed to respond to Defendants' Motion
 ECF No. 2.
 ECF No. 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
 Complaint p. 2.
 See Poindexter v.
FBI, 737 F.2d 1173, 1179 (D.C.Cir. 1984).
 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).
Id. At 1422 (“Although
not required to “exhaust the legal directory, ” a
plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has made a
“'reasonably diligent effort under the
circumstances to obtain counsel.'” (internal
citation omitted) (quoting Bradshaw v. ZoologicalSo ...