Carter v. Mulcahy et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 47 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Larry Lashawn Carter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Response for Appointed Lawyer" 47 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/21/14. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

LARRY LASHAWN CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPT. JAMES MULCAHY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

1:13CV159 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff=s “Response for Appointed Lawyer,” filed on
March 21, 2014 (ECF No. 47).
With respect to Plaintiff=s Response for Appointed Lawyer, 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 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.

After considering Plaintiff=s Response for Appointed Lawyer, 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 at this time. 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. Plaintiff=s Response for Appointed Lawyer will therefore be denied.
In addition, Plaintiff asks that the Court provide his “family member,” Michelle Turner,
with “any info she may request.” (ECF No. 47 at 2). Unfortunately, the Court may only provide
information and documents to parties and their counsel. The Court, therefore, must also deny this
request.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s “Response for Appointed Lawyer” [47] is
DENIED.

Dated this ___ day of March, 2014.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 2 -