Wilson v. Duckett Truck Center, Inc. et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Dale Dakota Wilson; motion is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/21/2012. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DALE DAKOTA WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUCKETT TRUCK CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-cv-85 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, #4, filed
May 24, 2012. The motion will be denied without prejudice.
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., No. 4:11cv1315 CDP, 2012 WL 996651, *7 (E.D. Mo. March 22, 2012). 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.
Maxwell, 2012 WL 996651 at *7; Slaughter v. Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 590 (8th Cir.1984);
Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.

After reviewing the above factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time. This case does not appear to be so factually or legally complex that
plaintiff is unable to present his claims or investigate the facts of this case without the assistance
of counsel. In addition, 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, #4, 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.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, #4, is
DENIED without prejudice
Dated this

21st

day of June, 2012.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-