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)

Download PDF
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 -

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?