Thomas v. Chandler et al

Filing 7

ORDER directing the Clerk to prepare summons and the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint and summons on defendants Jessica Chandler and Chad Pruett in care of the Faulkner County Detention Center, 500 German Lane, Conway, AR 72034-7014, without prepayment of fees therefor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 1/13/14. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
KATAKA NIGEL THOMAS,
ADC #152699
v.

PLAINTIFF
4:13CV00665-BRW-JTK

JESSICA CHANDLER, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff has now submitted an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 5), in accordance with the
Court’s December 4, 2013 Order (Doc. No. 3). Having reviewed the Amended Complaint for
screening purposes only,1 it now appears to the Court that service is appropriate for Defendants
Chandler and Pruett. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that service is appropriate for the Defendants Jessica
Chandler and Chad Pruett. The Clerk of the Court shall prepare summons for the Defendants and
the United States Marshal is hereby directed to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No.
5) and summons on Defendants in care of the Faulkner County Detention Center, 500 South German
Lane, Conway, AR 72034-7014, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.2
1

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1915A(a).
2

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 in
Johnson 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.. at 1322-23.
1

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2014.

__________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Having considered the above factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion should be
denied. Plaintiff’s claims are not legally or factually complex and he appears capable at this
time of litigating this matter, pro se. Therefore, the Court concludes that the pertinent factors do
not weigh in favor of appointment of counsel at this time.
2