Kiddie v. Copeland et al
ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Further, DIRECTING THE MARSHALS SERVICE TO SERVE Johnnie Copeland, Francie A Kiddie, and Kipp Woodbury. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on April 29, 2013. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JOHNNIE COPELAND as
TTEE and Individually,
FRANCIE A. KIDDIE,
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Motion
for Service (ECF No. 2) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 2) filed February 26, 2013.
The court has reviewed the IFP application and finds that the Motion to Proceed IFP
(ECF. No. 2) is GRANTED.
The Motion for Service (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
The Court hereby directs the United States Marshal to serve the Defendants as follows:
Johnnie Copeland at TTEE and Individually
Ethredge & Copeland
119 East 6th Street
Mountain Home, AR 72653
Francie A. Kiddie
1505 Regatta Rd
Laguna beach, CA 92651
Mountain Home, AR 72653
The Supreme Court has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988) does not authorize a federal
court to require an attorney to represent an indigent party in a case in federal court. Mallard v.
United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). The majority
of cases in which this Court appoints an attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case
are prisoner civil rights cases. O'Connor v. Jones 946 F.2d 1395, 1398 (C.A.8 (Mo.),1991)
“Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed
counsel.” Edgington v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir.1995). The trial
court has broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the
appointment of counsel, taking into account the factual and legal complexity of the case, the
presence or absence of conflicting testimony, and the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts and
present his claim. Swope, 73 F.3d at 852; In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1043-44 (8th Cir.1986).
The Plaintiff in this case indicates that she owned and operated a "successful computer
technology business" in California. She has articulated her claim in her complaint and appears to
be able to adequately represent herself. The Plaintiff has not establish any reason for the court to
appoint counsel and the Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this April 29, 2013.
/s/ J. Marschewski
HONORABLE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
Chief United States Magistrate Judge