Guyton v. Pemiscot County Special School District et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Shereeta Guyton. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 4 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/31/2012. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SHEREETA GUYTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEMISCOT COUNTY SPECIAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
SANDRA MANLEY and
SHERA BURROW,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-CV-106-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
Affidavit in Support [ECF No. 4]. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied
without prejudice.
The appointment of counsel for an indigent pro se plaintiff lies within the discretion of
the Court, since there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.
Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (citation omitted); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.”) See also Sours v. Norris, 782 F.2d 106, 107 (8th Cir.1986) (citation omitted).
Once Plaintiff alleges a prima facie claim, the Court must determine Plaintiff's need for
counsel to litigate his or her claim effectively. In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.1986).
The standard for appointment of counsel in a civil case is whether both Plaintiff and the Court
would benefit from the assistance of counsel. Edwards v. Dwyer, 2008 WL 222511 at *1
(E.D.Mo., January 25, 2008)(citations omitted). This determination involves the consideration of

several relevant criteria which include “the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the
indigent person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the
indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments.” Id. See also
Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir.1992); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319 (8th
Cir.1986).
After reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court does not believe that either the factual or
legal issues are complex. In addition, Plaintiff appears able to articulate and clearly present her
position. For these reasons, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not mandated at this
time, and Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [4] is
DENIED without prejudice.

Dated the 31st day of October, 2012.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2