Thornton v. Evans et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; and determining that the 15 Motion for Discovery should be re-docketed as a Request for Discovery from Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 5/26/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BILLY THORNTON, JR.,
ADC #89174
V.

PLAINTIFF
5:11-cv-00066-JLH-JTK

MARVIN EVANS, JR., et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and for Discovery
(Doc. No. 15).
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.
at 1322-23.
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.
In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery is actually a Request for Discovery from the
Defendants. Accordingly,

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 15)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 15) should be
re-docketed as a Request for Discovery from Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2011.

____________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2