Andrews v. Schafer et al
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #5] is DENIED, without prejudice. 5 Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 12/4/13. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
KEITH SCHAFER, et al.,
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion of for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #5]. The motion will be denied without prejudice.
“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.
Although plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint in accordance with the
Court’s Order of November 25, 2013 [Doc. #4], the Court finds that the appointment
of counsel is not warranted at this time. This case does not appear to be factually or
legally complex. Moreover, plaintiff has not set forth any reasons indicating that he
will be unable to present his claims. Consequently, the motion shall be denied at this
time, without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #5] is DENIED, without prejudice.
Dated this 4th day of December, 2013.
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?