Davis v. Lancaster et al
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 184], is denied without prejudice. 184 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/24/16. (CLA) cc: petitioner
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FREDERICK P. DAVIS,
TIMOTHY R. LANCASTER, et al.,
No. 4:13CV1638 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [Doc. No. 184]. 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
After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of
counsel is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [Doc. No. 184], is denied without prejudice.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2016.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?