Rudolph v. Jefferson County Jail

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel 27 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/11/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PATRICK RUDOLPH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12-CV-1780-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. [ECF
No. 27] For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice.
The appointment of counsel for an indigent pro se plaintiff 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.”)
See also Sours v. Norris, 782 F.2d 106, 107 (8th Cir.1986) (citation omitted).
Once Plaintiff alleges a prima facie claim, the Court must determine Plaintiff’s need for
counsel to litigate his claim effectively. In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.1986). The
standard for appointment of counsel in a civil case is whether both Plaintiff and the Court would
benefit from the assistance of counsel. Edwards v. Dwyer, 2008 WL 222511 at *1 (E.D.Mo., January
25, 2008)(citations omitted). This determination involves the consideration of several relevant
criteria which include “the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the indigent person to
investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent person to
present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments.” Id. See also Rayes v. Johnson, 969
F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir.1992); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319 (8th Cir.1986).

After reviewing Plaintiff’s Petition, the Court does not believe that either the factual or legal
issues are complex. Moreover, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff is clearly capable of articulating
and presenting his claim. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff has set forth the name of each
defendant he wishes to sue, the allegations supporting his claims as to each particular defendant, and
the right(s) he claims each particular defendant violated. (Doc. No. 6) Pursuant to this Court’s order,
Plaintiff has filed a written supplement to his amended complaint clarifying that he is suing the
individual defendants in their individual capacities. (Doc. No. 10)
For these reasons, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not mandated at this time,
and Plaintiff’s motion should be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel [27]
is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated the 11th day of September, 2013.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-