Aase v. Martin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION
LEE ALLEN AASE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE MARTIN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF EFFECTIVE
COUNSEL
(DOC. NO. 2)
Case No. 1:26-cv-00172
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Without the help of an attorney, Lee Aase brings claims against various
defendants for violating his civil rights and engaging in a civil conspiracy. Mr. Aase now
moves for appointment of counsel.1 Because Mr. Aase does not justify the appointment
of counsel, the motion is denied without prejudice.
1 (Pl.’s Mot. for Appointment of Effective Counsel (Mot), Doc. No. 2.)
Case 1:26-cv-00172-DAO Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
ANALYSIS
While defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to representation
by an attorney,2 “[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case.”3
Appointment of counsel in civil cases is left to the court’s discretion.4 Indigent parties in
civil cases may 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.5 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.”6
Mr. Aase’s motion is brief. He says he lacks the financial resources to hire
counsel “skilled in complex federal racketeering and civil rights litigation” to represent
him in this case.7 And it will be difficult to litigate the evidentiary issues and navigate a
trial.8 This is insufficient. Appointment of counsel is unjustified.
2 See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Fed. R. Crim. P. 44.
3 Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989).
4 Shabazz v. Askins, 14 F.3d 533, 535 (10th Cir. 1994).
5 McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
6 Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
7 (Mot, Doc. No. 2 at 1.)
8 (Id.)
Case 1:26-cv-00172-DAO Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
First, Mr. Aase’s statement that he cannot afford counsel “skilled” in his claims is
insufficient to show he cannot afford counsel. But even if Mr. Aase had shown an
inability to afford counsel, the relevant factors do not support appointment of counsel in
this case. His request for counsel comes at a time when no defendants have been
served, appeared, or contested his claims. Mr. Aase is correct that civil conspiracy and
constitutional claims can be difficult to litigate and involve complex evidentiary issues.
But without any active defendants, discovery, or dispositive motions, there are no
evidentiary issues before the court. And he has not shown his claims are any more
complex than those routinely litigated by pro se parties.
For these reasons, Mr. Aase has not shown appointment of counsel is justified in
this case.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Aase’s motion for appointment of counsel9 is denied without prejudice.10
DATED this 7th day of October, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge
9 (Doc. No. 2.)
10 Because the motion is denied without prejudice, Mr. Aase may file a new motion
explaining why, under the factors outlined above, his case warrants the appointment of
counsel.
Case 1:26-cv-00172-DAO Document 4 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3