Cooley v. Dakota County Jail Kitchen Staff/Medical Staff

Filing 24

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright on 1/6/2025. (SK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 24-CV-2457 (ECT/ECW)

Morye Cooley,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ACH and Summit,
Defendants.

This action comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Dkt. 22).
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel asserting the following
reasons for appointment: he is proceeding in forma pauperis, and is unable to afford
counsel; the issues involved in this case are complex and could involve cross examination
of witnesses; he has limited access to investigate while incarcerated; he has a limited
knowledge of the law; and limited access to a law library. (Dkt. 22.)
In civil proceedings, there is no constitutional nor statutory right to appointed
counsel. See Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). However, “[i]n civil
rights matters the court may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ‘request’ an attorney to
represent a party if, within the court’s discretion, the circumstances are such that would
properly justify such a request.” Mosby v. Mabry, 697 F.2d 213, 214 (8th Cir. 1982)
(citation omitted). Relevant factors in determining whether appointment of counsel is
appropriate are the factual complexity of the case, the complexity of the legal arguments,

the ability of the litigant to present her claims, and whether both the parties and the Court
would benefit from the indigent being represented by counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper
Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Edgington v. Missouri Dep’t of
Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Doe v. Cassel, 403
F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2005)); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986)
(quoting Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir. 1984)).
Here, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted because: the
Court cannot conclude that this matter dealing with allegations that the service of food in
Dakota County Jail violates Plaintiff’s religious rights and is nutritionally inappropriate
for him (see Dkt. 4) is factually or legally complex, and Plaintiff has demonstrated
sufficient ability to litigate in federal court as is evidenced by his ability to seek various
forms of relief in this case. For these reasons, the Court denies the motion for
appointment of counsel without prejudice.
ORDER
For all these reasons, and based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 22) is
DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: January 6, 2025

s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
United States Magistrate Judge

2