Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04102/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LISA LEE BOREN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff/Appellant ) 

) 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!"cuit 

JAN 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

GARY DELAND; WILLIAM FOWLKE; ) 

GERALD COOK; F. R. LONG; JOHN DOES) 

No. 90-4102 

(D.C. No. 88-C-538A) 

(District of Utah) 

1 - 10; KYLER. ADAMS, Officer, ) 

Outside Security, Utah State ) 

Prison; CAROL HORLACHER, Officer, ) 

Utah State Prison; STEVEN L. MCIFF,) 

Lieutenant, Outside Security, Utah) 

State Prison, ) 

) 

Defendants/Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for 

decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

This action arises out of a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 (1988). The plaintiff, Lisa Lee Boren, alleges that officials of the Utah State Prison wrongfully detained her after she 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

Appellate Case: 90-4102 Document: 010110069676 Date Filed: 01/08/1991 Page: 1 
visited her husband at the prison. The plaintiff appeals the district court's refusal to appoint counsel to help litigate her 

claim. She also appeals the district court's grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the defendants. 

I. 

On June 5, 1988, the plaintiff stopped her automobile on a 

roadway adjacent to the prison. Affidavits submitted by the 

defendants stated that she was approximately one-half mile from 

the prison when she waved "wildly" toward the prison and pointed 

several times toward the ground. Plaintiff then drove away. 

Officer Adams of the Utah Department of Corrections suspected 

that the plaintiff had made a "drop" of drugs and had signaled to 

an inmate to show him where it was. Other drops had occurred in 

the area. 

Officer Adams stopped and detained the plaintiff several 

miles from the site of the suspected drop to determine what had 

occurred. The plaintiff told Officer Adams that she was waving 

goodbye to her husband, an inmate at the prison, after visiting 

him earlier. Officer Adams and the plaintiff drove to the area 

where she had waved so that officers could search the area. The 

detention lasted approximately twenty-five minutes. 

36.3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4102 Document: 010110069676 Date Filed: 01/08/1991 Page: 2 
The district court referred this matter to a magistrate pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 636 (b)(l)(B) (1988). After both sides moved 

for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion for the court 

to appoint an attorney to her case. The magistrate denied the 

motion to appoint counsel and recommended granting defendants' 

motion for summary judgment. He evaluated the totality of the 

circumstances and concluded that the location of the plaintiff's 

stop, the arm waving and the pointing to the ground raised areasonable suspicion of a possible drug drop. See United States v. 

Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981). Accordingly, the detention did not 

violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The district court 

adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation. 

II. 

Plaintiff appeals the district court's decision not to 

appoint counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), district judges 

have the authority to appoint counsel for indigents in civil 

cases. * The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil case 

is left to the sound discretion of the district court. 

Blankenship v. Meachum, 840 F.2d 741, 743 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The district court may consider a variety of factors when 

deciding whether to appoint counsel. However, the issues raised 

* 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) states: 

The court may request an attorney to represent any such 

person unable to employ counsel and may dismiss the case 

if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied 

that the action is frivolous or malicious. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4102 Document: 010110069676 Date Filed: 01/08/1991 Page: 3 
i 

here are not particularly complex. See Bee v. Utah State Prison, 

823 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1987). Nor does this case present a situation where an indigent plaintiff is unable to investigate crucial facts, see Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th Cir. 

1981), or requires the help of "experienced trial counsel to sift 

through a complicated record or to take testimony." United States 

ex rel. Robinson v. Myers, 222 F. Supp. 845, 848 (E.D. Pa. 1963), 

aff'd, 326 F.2d 972 (3d Cir. 1964). Similarly, the plaintiff has 

not demonstrated that she lacks the capacity to present her case. 

See Drone v. Nutto, 565 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 1977) (ordering the 

district court to reconsider appointing counsel because record 

indicated plaintiff may have suffered from mental disease). We 

conclude, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying plaintiff's request for appointed counsel in 

this case. 

The plaintiff also appeals the granting of the defendants' 

motion for summary judgment. She bases her argument on the magistrate's statement that she may have had grounds for trial on the 

issue of nonconsensual transportation if she had filed a rebuttal 

affidavit in response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Report and Recommendation, June 4, 1990, at 12-13. The 

plaintiff, however, does not contest the magistrate's conclusion 

that summary judgment was appropriate on the evidence presented. 

Thus, the plaintiff contends, in effect, that appointed counsel 

would have filed the rebuttal affidavit. In light of our decision 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-4102 Document: 010110069676 Date Filed: 01/08/1991 Page: 4 
I 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing 

to appoint counsel, we affirm the granting of summary judgment. 

The district court's Order is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-4102 Document: 010110069676 Date Filed: 01/08/1991 Page: 5