Calhoun v. Corizon Correctional Health Care et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 54] is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for extension of time [ECF No. 60] is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 5/11/15. (EAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CORIZON CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
CARE, et al.,
No. 2:14CV88 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. The
motion will be denied.
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.
After considering these factors, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues involved are
not so complicated that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this time. Plaintiff alleges a
straightforward case of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs regarding a wrist
injury. And so far, plaintiff has shown that he can prosecute this action.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF
No. 54] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time [ECF No. 60]
is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 11th day of May, 2015.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?