Coleman v. Hakala et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's July 15, 2013 Memorandum and Order denying, as moot, plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is VACATED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to pro ceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, with respect to his request that the Office of the United States Marshals effectuate service of process on his behalf. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to effect formal service [Doc. #22] is GRANTE D IN PART, in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to enlarge time to effect service [Doc. #25] is GRANTED IN PART, in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plain tiffs motion for appointment ofcounsel [Doc. #23] is DENIED without prejudice.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for preliminaryinjunction [Doc. #2] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to refileafter defendants have been served and enter ed their appearance in this matter.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or causeprocess to issue upon the complaint. The Clerk shall serve defendant ElizabethConley through the waiver agreement the Court maintains with the Missour iDepartment of Corrections. The Corizon employees, defendants Michael Hakala,Stephanie Novak, Ruth Taylor and P. Stanley, should be served by personalsummons at their places of employment, Southeastern Correctional Center(SECC). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2),defendants shall reply to plaintiffs claims within the time provided by theapplicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/23/13. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALONZO DWAYNE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL HAKALA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13CV61 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on numerous motions filed by plaintiff
relating to service of process on defendants.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”) brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against current and former Corizon, Inc. and
Missouri Department of Corrections employees alleging that they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition relating to his polycystic
liver disease.
Because plaintiff paid the filing fee in this action, he was responsible for
effectuating service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 on
defendants. However, due to multiple issues, plaintiff has been unable to
effectuate service on defendants. The Court has reviewed the record in its
entirety, as well as plaintiff’s current pending motions, and because of the

seriousness of the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, the Court believes it should
vacate, in part, its prior order denying, as moot, in forma pauperis status to
plaintiff. [Doc. #15].
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s financial records and will grant
plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, with respect to his request to have
the Office of the United States Marshals effectuate service on his behalf, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court will order the Clerk to effectuate service on the
Corizon and MDOC employees on plaintiff’s behalf. The Clerk shall serve
defendant Elizabeth Conley through the waiver agreement the Court maintains
with the Missouri Department of Corrections. The Corizon employees, defendants
Michael Hakala, Stephanie Novak, Ruth Taylor and P. Stanley, should be served
by personal summons at their places of employment, Southeastern Correctional
Center (“SECC”).
Plaintiff will be granted an enlargement of time under Federal Rule of
Procedure 4(m), to the extent it is necessary for the Office of the United States
Marshals to effectuate service on his behalf.
However, the Court will not appoint plaintiff counsel at this time. As
support for his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff states that his access to
legal materials has been limited because he is being kept in segregation. However,
-2-

plaintiff has represented himself ably before this Court, citing the Federal Rules
appropriately and making cogent legal arguments. Thus, the Court cannot say that
his alleged limited access to legal materials has in some way harmed his
opportunities before this Court.
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil
cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir.
1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several
factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations
supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially
benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further
investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s allegations; and (4)
whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at
1005.
As proper service has not yet been effectuated and discovery has not yet
been commenced, motion practice and legal research is extremely limited at this
time. Thus, the Court cannot say that the appointment of counsel is yet warranted

-3-

in this case.1 Moreover, the Court does not believe that the facts in this action are
so complex that plaintiff cannot present them on his own behalf. As such,
plaintiff’s request for counsel will be denied at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s July 15, 2013 Memorandum
and Order denying, as moot, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is
VACATED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED, with respect to his request that the Office of the United
States Marshals effectuate service of process on his behalf.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to effect formal
service [Doc. #22] is GRANTED IN PART, in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to enlarge time to
effect service [Doc. #25] is GRANTED IN PART, in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
1

Plaintiff has not indicated when he will be released from segregation, nor
has he indicated when he will have additional legal materials available to him.
The Court hopes that by the time defendants have been properly served and
entered their appearance in this matter, plaintiff will have been released from
segregation and have additional access to legal materials.
-4-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #23] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction [Doc. #2] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to refile
after defendants have been served and entered their appearance in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint. The Clerk shall serve defendant Elizabeth
Conley through the waiver agreement the Court maintains with the Missouri
Department of Corrections. The Corizon employees, defendants Michael Hakala,
Stephanie Novak, Ruth Taylor and P. Stanley, should be served by personal
summons at their places of employment, Southeastern Correctional Center
(“SECC”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2),
defendants shall reply to plaintiff’s claims within the time provided by the
applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2013.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-