Kiddie v. Copeland et al

Filing 6

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 HARRISON DIVISION CHERIESE KIDDIE V. PLAINTIFF NO. 13-3030 JOHNNIE COPELAND as TTEE and Individually, FRANCIE A. KIDDIE, KIPP WOODBURY DEFENDANT ORDER 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 Kipp Woodbury 433 Lovann 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. Page -1- 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 + Page -2-