Hestdalen v. Corrizon Corrections Healthcare et al

Filing 269

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Danny D. Hestdalen's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 268 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/4/2020. (CLO)

Case: 2:18-cv-00039-JAR Doc. #: 269 Filed: 12/04/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 4452

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION

DANNY D. HESTDALEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORIZON, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-00039-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Danny D. Hestdalen’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel. (Doc. 268). Plaintiff has previously filed two motions for appointment of counsel
(Docs. 45, 98), both of which were denied. (Docs. 67, 173).
When determining whether to appoint counsel in a civil case, this Court must consider the
factual complexity of the issues, ability of the indigent plaintiff to investigate the facts, existence
of conflicting testimony, and complexity of the legal arguments. See Philips v. Jasper Cty. Jail,
437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Edgington v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 85 F.3d 777, 780
(8th Cir. 1995)). In its previous denials of Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel, this
Court determined that Plaintiff “has demonstrated a strong grasp on the medical issues involved
and illustrated a deep understanding of the available treatments and relative appropriateness of
each.” (Doc. 67 at 2). Plaintiff has continuously demonstrated his ability to effectively pursue his
claims without assistance of counsel. One of Plaintiff’s specific concerns is that he “does not have
the skills necessary to conduct trial preparations.” (Doc. 268 at 16). This Court reminds Plaintiff
that a trial date has not been set and will not be set until this Court rules on the fully briefed
summary judgment motions filed by Defendants. (Docs. 194, 199).

Case: 2:18-cv-00039-JAR Doc. #: 269 Filed: 12/04/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 4453

Plaintiff also requests, in the alternative, that this Court appoint counsel for the limited
purpose of obtaining an independent medical examination pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706. It is not
necessary that Plaintiff have counsel appointed for this Court to appoint an independent medical
expert. As this Court has previously explained, moreover, Plaintiff’s “current [medical] condition
does not bear on his constitutional claim” because it “does not assist the trier-of-fact in determining
whether he was denied medical treatment.” (Doc. 173 at 2). Courts rarely exercise their authority
under Rule 706, which requires “extraordinary and compelling circumstances to justify appointing
an expert witness.” Barnett v. Hill, Case No. 1:19-CV-00008-JAR, 2019 WL 4750250, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. Sept. 30, 2019). Smith v. Jenkins, cited by Plaintiff, constituted such extraordinary
circumstances because the lower court had apparently not reviewed any of the plaintiff’s medical
records. 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990). This Court has complete access to the applicable medical
records in this case. (Doc. 205). Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that extraordinary
circumstances are present, the motion for appointment of counsel in order to obtain an independent
medical examination pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706 will be denied.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Danny D. Hestdalen’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel (Doc. 268) is DENIED.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE