Walker v. Kane et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's ex parte motion for the U.S. Marshal's Office to effectuate service in this matter [ECF No. 17 ] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Cler k shall remove the ex parte restrictions from the motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel [ECF Nos. 4 , 18 ] are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must provide the name, employer, and location of named defendant Doug Barker within thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. If plaintiff fails to timely file this information, I will dismiss Barker without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 06/03/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MAURICE WALKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TOMAS R. KANE, et al.,
Defendants,

No. 4:13CV2498 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiff’s ex parte motion for the U.S. Marshal’s Office to
effectuate service in this matter and on his motion for appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion is moot.

I have already directed the Clerk’s office to

effectuate service in this matter. Moreover, there is no justifiable reason for the filing of the
motion ex parte. Therefore, I will direct the Clerk to remove the ex parte restrictions from the
motion.
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.

This is a

straightforward failure-to-protect case. Furthermore, plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to
present his claims in a coherent matter. The motion is denied.
Finally, defense counsel was unable to waive service against named defendant Doug
Barker because there was no Missouri Department of Corrections employee by that name who
worked at Farmington Correctional Center. Therefore, plaintiff must provide the proper name,
employer, and location of Doug Barker within thirty days of the date of this Memorandum and
Order. If plaintiff fails to provide this information, I will dismiss Barker without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s ex parte motion for the U.S. Marshal’s
Office to effectuate service in this matter [ECF No. 17] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the ex parte restrictions from
the motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel [ECF Nos. 4, 18] are
DENIED without prejudice.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must provide the name, employer, and
location of named defendant Doug Barker within thirty (30) days from the date of this
Memorandum and Order. If plaintiff fails to timely file this information, I will dismiss Barker
without prejudice.
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2014.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3