Roland v. Wallace et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 43 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Edwyn Roland, 41 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Edwyn Roland, 39 PRO SE MOTION Court Order and Appointment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Edwyn Rola nd. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 39, 41, 43) are denied without prejudice.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order (Doc. 39) isdenied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 4/19/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
EDWYN ROLAND,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
IAN WALLACE, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:14 CV166 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Complaint of Plaintiff Edwyn Roland on his civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against Defendants Ian Wallace, et al. Presently
pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s three motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 39, 41,
43), and request for “court order” (Doc. 39).
In his first motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states that he has been experiencing
difficulty receiving legal materials while housed in segregation at Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”). (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an Order directing SECC to: allow
him daily access with his caseworker to determine his stationary needs, provide at least ten sheets
of paper at least once a week, allow him to purchase ten more regular white envelopes, allow him
to have his white litigation book, allow him to have any papers out of his property that he considers
legal materials, and allow him to go through his property under the supervision of an officer and
retrieve any and all legal mail and legal materials. Plaintiff subsequently filed two additional
motions for appointment of counsel.
The appointment of counsel in a civil case is governed by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 (d). It is
within the district court’s sound discretion whether to appoint counsel for those who cannot pay for
1

an attorney under this provision. See In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir. 1986).
In determining whether a person who is indigent should be appointed counsel, the court
should ascertain “whether the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will
benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003,
1005 (8th Cir. 1984). In addition, the court should consider the factual complexity, the plaintiff=s
ability to investigate facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the plaintiff=s ability to present
her claim, and the complexity of the legal issues. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319,
1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
504 U.S. 930, 112 S. Ct. 1995, 118 L.Ed.2d 591 (1992).
After consideration of the above factors, the undersigned concludes that it is not necessary
that counsel be appointed for Plaintiff at this point in the litigation. As support for his motion for
appointment of counsel, Plaintiff contends that his access to legal materials has been limited
because he is being kept in segregation. Plaintiff, however, has filed appropriate pleadings and
motions for continuances in this matter. Thus, the Court cannot say that his alleged limited access
to legal materials has affected his ability to prosecute his case.
The undersigned finds that Plaintiff has clearly presented his claims against Defendants,
and that it does not appear that Aplaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of
counsel.@ Thus, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice.
AWithout prejudice@ means that Plaintiff may later ask for appointment of counsel if he feels it is
necessary. The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring SECC to provide
him with specific legal materials.

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel
(Docs. 39, 41, 43) are denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order (Doc. 39) is
denied.

Dated this 19th day of April, 2016.

ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3