Bolden v. St. Louis County Circuit Court and Judge Tommy DePriest, Jr.

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 11] is DENIED. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/23/13. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DARRELL I. BOLDEN a/k/a
Yusuf Abdullah El,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1556-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #11].
The Court notes that the motion was signed on September 16, 2013, and was received
by the Court on September 18, 2013. The Court dismissed this action on September
17, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Docs. # 8 and #9]. Although the
Court has already dismissed the instant action, it will review the merits of plaintiff’s
motion and explain why appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case.
Plaintiff’s grounds in support of his request for appointment of counsel are (1)
he believes he is entitled to redress and because of his poverty; (2) he is unable to pay
a reasonable attorney fee; and (3) despite his diligent efforts to obtain legal counsel,
he has been unable to do so.

“A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel
appointed in a civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998).
When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, the Court
considers relevant factors, such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se
litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability
of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Id.
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel
would not be warranted. This case is neither factually nor legally complex, and
plaintiff was able to adequately set forth his claims in clear and concise manner.
Moreover, the fact remains that Missouri courts are not suable entities under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and judges are entitled to absolute immunity for all judicial decisions not
taken in a complete absence of jurisdiction. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion will
be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
[Doc. #11] is DENIED.

2

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this Order would not be
taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2013.

___________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3