Carter v. Mulcahy et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are granted until Friday, February 14, 2014, within which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion 24 . Failure to do so will result in the Court ruling on Plaintiff's unopposed Motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 28 and 30 are DENIED. ( Response to Court due by 2/14/2014.) Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 2/3/2014. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LARRY LASHAWN CARTER,
CAPT. JAMES MULCAHY, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its review of the record. On or around January 16,
2014, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court stating that he did not have access to a law library for
research. (ECF No. 24). The Court construes this letter as a First Amendment motion for access
to the courts. To date, Defendants have not responded to this Motion.1 Therefore, the Court
orders Defendants to respond to this Motion.
On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 28)
and, on February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter again asking the Court for legal assistance (ECF
No. 30). The Court refers to Plaintiff’s Motion and letter jointly as “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel”. With respect to Plaintiff=s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, there
is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Nelson v. Redfield
Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint
counsel, courts consider factors that include whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous
allegations supporting his prayer for relief, whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the
Pursuant to E.D.Mo. L.R. 4.01, a party opposing a motion must file a memorandum in opposition
within seven (7) days after being served with the motion.
appointment of counsel, whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related
to the plaintiff=s allegations, and whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are
complex. See Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990); Johnson v. Williams, 788
F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
At this point in the litigation and in view of the relevant factors, the Court finds that the
facts and legal issues presented in the instant case are not so complex as to warrant the
appointment of counsel. In addition, the pleadings filed by Larry L. Carter indicate that he is
capable of presenting the facts and legal issues without the assistance of counsel. At this time,
Plaintiff=s Motion for Appointment of Counsel will therefore be denied. If the Court later finds
that Plaintiff does not have access to a law library or is otherwise unable to litigate his case, the
Court may reconsider this Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are granted until Friday, February 14,
2014, within which to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion . Failure to do so will result in the Court
ruling on Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff=s Motion to for Appointment of Counsel 
and  are DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2014.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?