Jones v. Boyer

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Orlando Jones, 5 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Orlando Jones. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED without prejudice.[3, 5] Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on November 1, 2013. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ORLANDO JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-6, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case number 4:13cv1407 TCM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is before the Court on two motions filed by
plaintiff, Orlando Jones, requesting the appointment of counsel. [Docs. 3, 5]
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was falsely arrested and beaten while
handcuffed by six "John Doe" police officers or sheriff's deputies employed by Jefferson
County, Missouri. Three named defendants – Edward Kemp; Chuck Banks; and Patrick
Lamping – are Police Commissioners for Jefferson County and allegedly knew of the
propensity of the "John Doe" defendants to commit bad acts, but deliberately failed to
reprimand or supervise them. The policy of another defendant, Jefferson County, led to the
violation of Plaintiff's civil rights. Another defendant, probation officer "Jane Doe," had him
handcuffed and placed in the county jail for not reporting an arrest, which had never been
made.
Defendants Lamping and Jefferson County have answered the complaint. Summons
has been returned unexecuted on Kemp and Banks.

In both motions for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff avers that he is unable to pay a
reasonable attorney fee due to his poverty and that, despite his diligent efforts to retain
counsel, had been unable to do so.
"'Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed
counsel.'" Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Edgington v. Missouri
Dep't of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995)). When deciding whether to grant a
request for appointed counsel, the Court should consider "whether both the plaintiff and the
court will benefit from the appointment of counsel, taking into account the factual and legal
complexity of the case, the presence or absence of conflicting testimony, and the plaintiff's
ability to investigate the facts and present his claim." Id. Accord Plummer v. Grimes, 87
F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996); Swope v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 852 (8th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel
are DENIED without prejudice. [Docs. 3, 5]

/s/ Thomas C. Mummert, III
THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of November, 2013.

-2-