Davis v. Webb et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel 59 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/9/2012. (RAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FREDERICK P. DAVIS,
TERRY WEBB, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [ECF
No. 59] A review of the docket indicates Plaintiff first requested appointment of counsel on
October 11, 2012. [ECF No. 54] Plaintiff’s request was considered in light of relevant factors, see
Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998), and denied without prejudice on October
18, 2012. [ECF No. 57] Plaintiff filed the instant motion for appointment of counsel on November
Again, the appointment of counsel for a pro se litigant lies within the discretion of the
Court, since there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.
Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (citation omitted); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.”) When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, the Court
considers relevant factors, including 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 the claims. Stevens, 146 F.3d at 546.
The Court finds nothing in the record to warrant appointment of counsel at this time. This
case is neither factually nor legally complex. Moreover, it is evident that Plaintiff is able to
articulate and clearly present his claims, because the Court has ordered Defendants to respond to
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 
is DENIED without prejudice.
Day of November, 2012.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?