JOHNSON v. MINOR, 4:14CV59 HEA. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20150423990
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2015
Summary: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HENRY EDWARD AUTREY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 33]. The motion will be denied, without prejudice. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003 , 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff ha
Summary: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HENRY EDWARD AUTREY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 33]. The motion will be denied, without prejudice. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003 , 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has..
More
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 33]. The motion will be denied, without prejudice.
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff's allegations; and (4) whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally complex. Moreover, it is evident that Plaintiff is able to present his claims, because the Court has ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 33] is denied without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
