Vonneedo v. Dennis et al
Filing
68
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 54 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Thomas Vonneedo motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/22/20. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS VONEEDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN DENNIS, et. al
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:18CV34 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the latest motion, filed two months and 2 days after
the denial of the previous motion, of plaintiff Voneedo for the appointment of counsel. (Docket
No. 54). The motion will be denied without prejudice.
The appointment of counsel for an indigent pro se plaintiff lies within the discretion of
the Court, as there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.
Ward v. Smith, 732 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013); see 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e) (“when an indigent
prisoner has pleaded a nonfrivolous cause of action, a court may appoint counsel.”) (emphasis
added).
Once the plaintiff alleges a prima facie claim, the Court must determine the plaintiff’s
need for counsel to litigate the claim effectively. In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.
1986). The standard for appointment of counsel in a civil case is whether both the plaintiff and
the Court would benefit from the assistance of counsel. Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of
Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Doe v. Cassel, 403
F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). This determination involves the consideration
of several relevant criteria which include “the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the
indigent person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the
indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments.” Phillips v.
Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 94 (citing Edgington, 52 F.3d at 780).
In some instances, a court may deny a motion for appointment of counsel without
prejudice because it believes the record is insufficient to determine, one way or the other,
whether it would be appropriate to appoint counsel when the above factors are considered. See
Id. For example, discovery may not have begun or may have just begun at the time of the
request for appointment of counsel, so there is no conflicting testimony. There may be no
indication in the record that the plaintiff lacks the ability to investigate or present his case where
she correctly identifies the applicable legal standard governing her claims and her complaint
contains all essential information. Finally, the Court may consider whether the plaintiff’s claims
involve information that is readily available to her. Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794.
In this case, the record does not support the appointment of counsel at this time. Nothing
has even considerably changed since the last motion. The claims plaintiff has presented do not
appear factually or legally complex. Finally, plaintiff has demonstrated ability to clearly present
and investigate his claims. He has filed a complaint that is articulate and readily understood,
indicating that he is capable of clear expression and logical organization of content. However,
the Court recognizes that the relevant circumstances may change. The Court will therefore deny
the motion for the appointment of counsel, without prejudice. If appropriate at a later stage of
this litigation, plaintiff may file a motion to appoint counsel that addresses the foregoing factors.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 2020.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?