Filed: May 30, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-3125 _ Anthony P. Lane, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 15, 2008 Filed: May 30, 2008 _ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal, Anthony P. Lane appeals the district court’s1 order denying his moti
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-3125 _ Anthony P. Lane, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 15, 2008 Filed: May 30, 2008 _ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal, Anthony P. Lane appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motio..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3125
___________
Anthony P. Lane, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *
Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: May 15, 2008
Filed: May 30, 2008
___________
Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In this interlocutory appeal, Anthony P. Lane appeals the district court’s1 order
denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We find no abuse of discretion. See
Phillips v. Jasper County Jail,
437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (there is no statutory
or constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil case; discussing factors).
However, it appears from documents Lane filed near the time of the August 2007
1
The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
order at issue, and from his filings in this court, that his mental status has changed and
that he and the district court might now benefit from the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, we affirm but we clarify that the district court’s order is without
prejudice to Lane’s right to renew his request for counsel as the case progresses. See
Nelson v. Shuffman,
476 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
______________________________
-2-