Woods v. Hays et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 7 ] is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/5/2015. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DARRELL WOODS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICKY HAYS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15CV13 CDP

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. Moreover,
neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex.

The allegations state a

straightforward case of retaliation under the First Amendment. Therefore, the Court denies the
motion without prejudice.

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 [ECF
No. 7] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 5th day of August, 2015.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-