LaMere v. Pennington et al
ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's January 30, 2012 Order denying his Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 2/13/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FRED MICHAEL LAMERE,
BRUCE PENNINGTON, et al.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
January 30, 2012 Order denying his Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 8).
While a pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil
case, Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998), the Court may, in its discretion,
appoint counsel for non-frivolous claims where “the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as
well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319,
1322 (8th Cir. 1986). In evaluating Plaintiff’s request, the Court considered four factors: (1) the
factual and legal complexity of the case; (2) the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts; (3) the
presence or absence of conflicting testimony; and (4) the plaintiff's ability to present his claims. Id.
Having considered the above factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied
at this time. Plaintiff’s claims are not legally or factually complex, and the record demonstrates
Plaintiff is capable of proceeding without the benefit of appointed counsel. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 18)
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2012.
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?