Barber v. Drury Inn Convention Center

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 4 ) is Denied Without Prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a responsive pleading to Defendants Motion to Dismiss no later than April 21, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 4/9/14. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
REGINALD BARBER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DRURY INN CONVENTION CENTER,
Defendant.

No. 4:14CV319 TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Reginald Barber’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Background
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff brings this employment
discrimination action against his employer, Drury Inn Convention Center, alleging age discrimination
and sex harassment.
There is no constitutional right for a pro se plaintiff to have counsel appointed in a civil case,
although the Court has discretion to appoint an attorney to handle such a case when necessary. See
Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996). Among the factors a court should consider in
making this determination are the factual complexity of the case; the ability of the plaintiff to
investigate the facts and present his claim; the complexity of the legal issues; and to what degree
plaintiff and the court would benefit from such an appointment. Id.
The Eighth Circuit has identified three additional factors relevant to the appointment of
counsel in an employment discrimination case: “(1) the plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the

plaintiff’s efforts to secure counsel, and (3) the merits of the discrimination claim.” Slaughter v. City
of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 590 (8th Cir. 1984).
Upon review of the file, the Court finds that this dispute is straightforward, and the legal
issues are not complex. Thus, the Court concluded that appointment of counsel is not appropriate
at this time. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a responsive pleading to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and the time for doing so has passed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket
No. 4) is Denied Without Prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a responsive pleading to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss no later than April 21, 2014.

Dated this 9th

day of April, 2014.

/s/ Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-