Martin v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc.

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Willie T. Martin. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, #2, filed September 19, 2011, is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/3/12. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
WILLIE T. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRINITY MARINE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11CV181 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, #2,
filed September 19, 2011. This case was re-assigned to the undersigned on December 20, 2011.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant, his former employer, discriminated against him on
the bases of race, color, and gender. On December 9, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss
some of plaintiff’s claims, to which plaintiff has not responded.
Title VII provides that a court may appoint counsel to represent a plaintiff under “such
circumstances as the court may deem just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1); Maxwell v. Express
Scripts, Inc., 2012 WL 996651, *7 (E.D. Mo. March 22, 2012), unpublished. A civil litigant has
no constitutional or statutory right to court-appointed counsel, and the decision whether to
appoint counsel is within the Court’s discretion. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728
F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir.1984); In re Steven Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042-44 (8th Cir.1986). In
making its determination, the Court considers whether:
(1) the plaintiff can afford to retain an attorney; (2) the plaintiff has made a
good-faith effort to retain an attorney, but has been unable to do so; (3) there is
some factual basis for the plaintiff’s lawsuit; and (4) the nature of the litigation is
such that the plaintiff and the court would benefit from the assistance of counsel.

-1-

Maxwell, 2012 WL 996651 at *7; Slaughter v. Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 590 (8th Cir.1984);
Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
Plaintiff’s pro forma motion and affidavit state simply that he is “unable to pay a
reasonable attorney fee” and that he has “made diligent efforts to obtain legal counsel” but has
been unsuccessful “because of [his] poverty.” Plf’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, #2, p. 1.
Although plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status, that does not necessarily mean that
he cannot obtain legal counsel. Some attorneys who specialize in employment discrimination
matters do so on a contingency-fee basis, which requires little or no initial payment, and plaintiff
has not explained what efforts he has made to retain an attorney. Therefore, the Court finds that
appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time and will deny plaintiff’s motion without
prejudice. See Maxwell, 2012 WL 996651 at *7. Further, should plaintiff require additional time
to attempt to obtain legal counsel regarding defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, the Court
would be willing to consider an appropriate motion for extension of time to respond to
defendant’s motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, #2, filed
September 19, 2011, is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2012.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-