CAVANAUGH v. HALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 4:14CV3062. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150303b07
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BATAILLON , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Stephen Cavanaugh's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 33 ) and Motion for Hearing/Order (Filing No. 35 ). The court cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v. Scott , 94 F.3d 444 , 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that "[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. The trial co
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BATAILLON , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Stephen Cavanaugh's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 33 ) and Motion for Hearing/Order (Filing No. 35 ). The court cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v. Scott , 94 F.3d 444 , 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that "[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. The trial cou..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Stephen Cavanaugh's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 33) and Motion for Hearing/Order (Filing No. 35). The court cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that "[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. The trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel[.]" Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). No such benefit is apparent here at this time. Thus, the request for the appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice to reassertion.
The court will also deny Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing/Order. The court denied Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction on February 18, 2015. (See Filing No. 31.) Therefore, a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction is unnecessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 33) is denied without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing/Order (Filing No. 35) is denied.
3. Plaintiff's discovery-related motions (Filing Nos. 34 and 37) will remain pending until after Defendants have had an opportunity to respond to them.
Source: Leagle
