Davis v. Webb et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 54 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Frederick P. Davis motion is denied, without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/18/12. (LGK)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION FREDERICK P. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. TERRY WEBB, et al., Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:11-CV-1906-JAR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #54]. The motion will be denied without prejudice. “A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, the Court considers relevant factors, such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Id. After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally complex. Moreover, it is evident that plaintiff is able to present his claims, because the Court has ordered defendant to respond to plaintiff’s claims. Consequently, the motion shall be denied at this time, without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #54] is DENIED, without prejudice. Dated this 18th day of October, 2012. JOHN A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?