Isaac v. Flenoid

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 42 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Harold D. Isaac, 37 PRO SE MOTION For Aid/Directive for Laundry Bag filed by Plaintiff Harold D. Isaac - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (#42) is DENIED without prejudice at this time. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for aid/directive for a laundry bag is DENIED at this time. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/2/2016. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
HAROLD D. ISAAC, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANA COCKRELL and
TIMOTHY HOLSTEN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-27 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are two motions by the plaintiff (#37 & #42). The Court will
address both in turn, first addressing plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (#42) and then
plaintiff’s motion for aid/directive for a laundry bag (#37).
I.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s letter received by the Court on
October 20, 2016, which the Court will construe as plaintiff’s second motion to appoint
counsel (#42). Plaintiff states that he has made several attempts to hire an attorney but
has been unsuccessful. Plaintiff has requested a “Jailhouse Lawyers’ Manual” from an
agency. Plaintiff asks the Court to provide him with legal counsel because the issues
underlying his claim are complicated and he is purportedly unable to litigate the claim
himself.
The appointment of counsel for an indigent pro se plaintiff lies within the
discretion of the Court. Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory
right to appointed counsel. Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d. 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998);
1

Edgington v. Mo. Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d. 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995); Rayes v.
Johnson, 969 F.2d. 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1992). The standard for appointment of counsel in
a civil case involves the weighing of several factors which include the factual complexity
of a matter, the complexity of legal issues, the existence of conflicting testimony, the
ability of the indigent to investigate the facts, and the ability of the indigent to present his
claim. See McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1997); Stevens, 146 F.3d. at 546;
Edgington, 52 F.3d. at 780; Natchigall v. Class, 48 F.3d. 1076, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 1995);
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d. 1319, 1322-1323 (8th Cir. 1986).
In this matter, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not required at this
time. The plaintiff has written many letters to the Court since he filed this action. The
plaintiff continues to be able to litigate this matter, and nothing has occurred to indicate
any need to appoint counsel at this point in time. This action appears to involve
relatively straightforward questions of fact rather than complex questions of law, and
plaintiff appears able to clearly present and investigate his claim.
The Court will continue to monitor the progress of this case, and if it appears to
this Court that the need arises for counsel to be appointed, the Court will do so.
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Aid/Directive for Laundry Bag

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s letter, dated September 14, 2016, to
the Court, which the Court will construe as a motion for aid or directive to supply the
plaintiff with a laundry bag (#37). According to the defendants’ response to plaintiff’s
motion, the plaintiff’s order for a laundry bag was processed and the laundry bag was
available for plaintiff to pick up on September 29, 2016 (#50). To date, plaintiff has not
contested his ability to pick up the laundry bag. The Court finds this issue resolved.

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
(#42) is DENIED without prejudice at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for aid/directive for a laundry
bag is DENIED at this time.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3