Knox v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion to strike his motion to file an amended § 2255 motion 20 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant's motion to file an amended § 2255 motion 18 is moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant's motion for discovery 21 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant's motion for subpoenas 22 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant's motions for appointment of counsel [4, 19] are DENIED without prejudice.. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 5/31/11. (LGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RALPH ANTHONY KNOX,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 4:10CV1321 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Movant has filed several motions: a motion to file an amended § 2255 motion,
a motion to strike his motion to file an amended § 2255 motion, a motion for
discovery, a motion for subpoenas, and two motions to appoint counsel.
I will grant movant’s motion to strike his motion to file an amended § 2255
Movant requests leave of Court to conduct discovery relevant to the validity
of the search warrants executed on his property. He further seeks to investigate the
government’s witnesses and to review the personal files of all persons involved in his
case. In his motion for subpoenas, he requests leave to subpoena several people he
suggests were involved in procuring unlawful search warrants.
In his § 2255 motion, movant argues that his counsel was ineffective for
advising him to plead guilty rather than go to trial. The discovery movant requests
is not necessary to ruling the issues raised in the § 2255 motion. As a result, the
motion for discovery and motion for subpoenas 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. As a result, the motions to appoint counsel will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion to strike his motion to file
an amended § 2255 motion [#20] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion to file an amended
§ 2255 motion [#18] is moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion for discovery [#21] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion for subpoenas [#22] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motions for appointment of
counsel [#4, 19] are DENIED without prejudice.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of May, 2011.
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?