Carter v. Mulcahy et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Pro Se Motion for Access to the Court 24 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED at this time. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff has until Friday, March 7, 2014 to file an amended complaint in this action.( Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 3/7/2014.) Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 2/27/2014. (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 February 3, 2014, the
Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s request for counsel in this case and ordering Defendants
to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amendment motion for access to the courts. (ECF No. 31).
Defendants Captain James Mulcahy, Captain Ruth Ann Dickerson, Captain Bud Proffer, and
Sherriff John Jordan responded to this Court’s show cause order, indicating that the Cape
Girardeau County Jail maintains a library, which includes the Missouri Revised Statutes that
Plaintiff requested. (ECF No. 32). On February 19, 2014, the Court again ordered Defendants to
respond to Plaintiff’s motion for access to the courts. The Court noted that the jail officers told
Plaintiff to speak with his attorney regarding his request for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(ECF No. 34 at 5).
Defendants Captain James Mulcahy, Captain Ruth Ann Dickerson, Captain Bud Proffer,
and Sherriff John Jordan have again responded and indicate that the Administrator of the Cape
Girardeau County Jail, Captain James Mulcahy, has instructed all correctional officers to provide
the Missouri Revised Statutes and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for any inmate, including
Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 24 at 1, 37 at 1). To date, Plaintiff has only alleged that has not received the
Missouri State Statutes and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 34 at 5). Given that
Defendants have made these legal research items available, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not
shown any prejudice and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to the Courts (ECF No. 24). See
Jones v. James, 38 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 1994)(“ a successful denial-of-access claim requires a
showing of prejudice”).
Plaintiff also submitted a “Responds [sic] to the Memorandum and Order,” dated February
(ECF No. 38).
Therein, Plaintiff again requests that the Court appoint him
representation. Plaintiff also states that there have been additional instances where the medical
staff has not treated him. Plaintiff further states that his legal mail has been opened and that he
has been overcharged for copying.
To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting appointment of counsel, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff has repeatedly demonstrated that he understands the legal issues in
this case and that he is able to articulately express his position. Plaintiff does not have a right to
counsel in a civil case, and the Court finds no reason to appoint his counsel based upon the record
before the Court.
With respect to Plaintiff’s statements regarding his medical claims and the alleged
jailhouse improprieties, the Court notes that Plaintiff cannot amend his Complaint by
interlineation. See Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008).
The Court previously gave Plaintiff until February 28, 2014 to file a proposed amended complaint
that includes each and every claim he wishes to bring against every defendant in this action. The
Court gives Plaintiff an additional week, until March 7, 2014, to file a proposed amended
complaint that incorporates all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s Pro Se Motion for Access to the Court  is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is
DENIED at this time.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff has until Friday, March 7, 2014 to file an
amended complaint in this action.
Dated this 27th 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?