Cody v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 11] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 4] is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 9/10/2012. (KSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SOLOMON GENE CODY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV412 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Williams, Henderson, and Fipps’s
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel. Both motions will be denied.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who are medically trained and were
responsible for making decisions about Plaintiff’s health, allowed him to be placed in solitary
confinement while he was barely conscious and vomiting. Construed liberally, these
allegations are sufficient to plead a claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious
medical needs. As a result, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 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, and therefore,
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 11] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
[Doc. 4] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 10th day of September, 2012.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-