Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williams v. Mitchell, 4:17-CV-1282 NCC. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20180328d12 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NOELLE C. COLLINS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel and for "extension of time" to proceed in this lawsuit. After considering the motions and the pleadings, the motions will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Jefferson City Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. He alleges that he was subjected to excessive force by several cor
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel and for "extension of time" to proceed in this lawsuit. After considering the motions and the pleadings, the motions will be denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Jefferson City Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. He alleges that he was subjected to excessive force by several correctional officers in July of 2012 when he was incarcerated at the St. Louis City Justice Center. Plaintiff also asserts that two officers failed to intervene in the altercation and should be held individually liable for their actions.

In his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff asserts that because he is in prison, his ability to litigate this case will be greatly limited once discovery and trial begin. However, at this stage of the litigation, plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint, and he has demonstrated that he is able to represent himself. See Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex.

Once defendants file their answer or other responsive pleading in this matter, the Court will be able to ascertain more about the progression of this case. After this time, the Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel. Moreover, at this time, plaintiff is not required to file a responsive brief or other pleading before the Court, so his motion for extension of time will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #19] is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for extension of time [Doc. #21] is DENIED without prejudice.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer