Carter v. Martin

Filing 26

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -- HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's combined motion for appointment of counsel and to amend his petition [ECF No. 22 ] is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner wishes to file an amended petition, he must file a motion to amend along with a proposed amended petition within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.( Response to Court due by 7/16/2013.). Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 06/25/2013. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM BILLY GENE CARTER,
Petitioner,
v.
MARTHA MARTIN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV2159 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s combined motion for
appointment of counsel and to amend his petition. The motion will be denied without
prejudice.
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.
To obtain leave to file an amended petition, “a party must submit the proposed
amendment along with its motion.” Clayton v. White Hall School Dist., 778 F.2d
457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985); see Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 395 (8th Cir.1983)
(“Absent some indication as to what might be added to the complaint to make it
viable, the [moving party] is not entitled to leave to amend.”). Petitioner has not
submitted an amended petition along with his motion to amend. As a result, the Court
will deny the request without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s combined motion for
appointment of counsel and to amend his petition [ECF No. 22] is DENIED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner wishes to file an amended
petition, he must file a motion to amend along with a proposed amended petition
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.
Dated this 25th day of June, 2013.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-