Elston v. Collins et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for an Extension (ECF No. 22 ) is DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 25 ) is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 11/21/2018. (AFC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES ELSTON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNNIE POLLARD, et al.,
Defendant.

No. 2:18CV19 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I.

Request for Extension

Plaintiff asked for an "extension to be able to learn how to file motions and put together my
case[.]" (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff, however, has not identified the particular deadlines for which
he needs an extension. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs request for an extension, without
prejudice.

II.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.
25).
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Nelson v.

Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to
appoint counsel, courts consider factors that include whether the plaintiff has presented
non-frivolous allegations supporting his prayer for relief, whether the plaintiff will substantially
benefit from the appointment of counsel, whether there is a need to further investigate and present
the facts related to the plaintiffs allegations, and whether the factual and legal issues presented by
the action are complex. See Battle v. Armantrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990); Johnson v.

Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.

After considering Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel, in view of the relevant
factors, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues presented in the instant case are not so
complex as to warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. In addition, the pleadings filed by
James Elston, indicate that he is capable of presenting the facts and legal issues without the
assistance of counsel. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel will therefore be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Request for an Extension (ECF No. 22) is
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF

No. 25) is DENIED, without prejudice

Dated this 21st day of November, 2018.

~~
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2