Sobberi v. Wallace et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 60 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Casey W. Sobberi, 55 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Casey W. Sobberi motions are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/17/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

CASEY SOBBERI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MATTHEW HOWARD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16CV60 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel (#53, #60).
The appointment of counsel for an indigent pro se plaintiff lies within the discretion
of the Court. Although plaintiff insists that it is unfair that he is without an attorney while
the defendant is represented by the Office of the Missouri Attorney General, 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); 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, 1080-81 (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 remains unnecessary at
this time. Plaintiff appears 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 still appears to
involve 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 reconsider.
Plaintiff also sent a letter to the Court advising that he is in Administrative
Segregation and has not yet received access to his legal materials. Plaintiff wants the
Court to order the Department of Corrections to bring him all of his legal materials. The
Court reminds plaintiff that any “request for a court order must be made by motion.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). Regardless, the Court advises plaintiff that, should he need additional
time in order to prosecute his case effectively, plaintiff may request extra time by motion
and the Court will be lenient with such motions for good cause.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel
(#53, #60) are DENIED without prejudice at this time.
Dated this 17th

day of August, 2018.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2