Anderson v. Carro et al

Filing 19

OPINION MEMORANDUM re: 13 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Mark Bruce Anderson - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 13]. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 9/4/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MARK BRUCE ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORPORAL CARROW, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18CV48 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel.

After considering the motion and the

pleadings, the motion is denied without prejudice to refiling at a later time.
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v.
Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to
appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has
presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the
plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to
further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s allegations; and (4) whether the
factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d
1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
Plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint. However, he has
demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally,
neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex.
The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case
progresses.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 13]
Dated this 4th day of September, 2018.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-