Todd v. Godbolt et al
ORDER denying 18 Motion for Recusal; denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on October 30, 2015. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Civil No. 4:13-cv-4058-SOH-BAB
JOHNNY GODBOLT et al
BEFORE the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal ECF No. 18) and Motion to Appoint
Counsel (ECF No. 23). Defendants have not responded to the Motion to Appoint Counsel.
1. Motion for Recusal: Plaintiff seeks to have the undersigned recuse himself from this case.
As a basis for this motion he indicates the Defendants have been directed to file a motion for
summary judgment. The Court’s typical scheduling order directs the defendants to either file a
motion for summary judgment or indicate material issues of facts exist. There is no basis for recusal
in this matter. Further, the undersigned is a referral judge handling pre-trial matters. The final
disposition or trial of this matter will before United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey.
Accordingly, the Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.
2. Motion to Appoint Counsel: A civil litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory
right to appointed counsel in a civil action but the Court may appoint counsel at its discretion. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court has considered plaintiff's need for an attorney, the likelihood that
plaintiff will benefit from assistance of counsel, the factual complexity of the case, the plaintiff's
ability to investigate and present his case. In considering these factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
claims that he was denied adequate medical care and subjected to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement do not appear legally or factually complex. It appears he is capable of prosecuting his
claims without appointed counsel. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 23) is hereby
ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
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?