Taylor v. Bailey et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Doc. 25 . Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/1/2013. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL LEWIS TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN BAILEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-614 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Samuel Lewis Taylor’s motion for
appointment of counsel. For the following reasons, the motion 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.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED. [Doc. 25]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

1st

day of October, 2013.

-2-