Peterson v. Correctional Medical Services et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 45 ] is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 10/12/11. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD D. PETERSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case number 4:10cv1866 TCM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff, Richard
D. Peterson, for the appointment of counsel.
Pending in this action is an eighty-one page typed verified amended complaint against
Correctional Medical Services, four medical directors, and four doctors for alleged deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. In support of each of his nineteen
constitutional claims, Plaintiff outlines the supporting facts in thirty-seven typed pages.
These pages include references to medical terminology, medications, and dates and times.
The claims and supporting allegations are cogent and relevant.
A case management order was issued in June 2011, allowing Defendants leave to take
Plaintiff's deposition and setting a deadline for the filing of any motions for summary
judgment. Defendants have requested, and been granted, an extension of both the discovery
and dispositive motions deadlines.
Plaintiff in a five-page, typed motion supported by a two-page affidavit moves this
Court for appointment of counsel, explaining the difficulties he will have as a prisoner

conducting discovery, taking depositions, responding to a motion for summary judgment, and
trying the case.
In deciding whether to grant Plaintiff's motion, the Court must decide "whether [he]
and the [C]ourt will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel, considering the
factual and legal complexity of the case, [P]laintiff's ability to investigate the facts, the
existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of [P]laintiff to present his claim."
Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996); accord Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d
444, 445 (8th Cir. 1996). Consideration of these factors militates against the appointment
of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff's complaint is articulate, cogently frames
the relevant legal and factual issues, shows an ability to argue the issues, and indicates a
familiarity with the medical issues. It is not now known whether there will be a trial. His
motion will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
45] is DENIED without prejudice.

/s/ Thomas C. Mummert, III
THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of October, 2011.

-2-