Johnson et al v. AT&T Corporation

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PRO BONO VOLUNTEER SERVICE PANEL APPOINTMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall appoint counsel pursuant to the Plan for the Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. A separate Notice of Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel shall be entered by the Clerk. (Doc. No. 31 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for Explanation and Amendment to Previous Filing is GRANTED, to the extent it r eflects a desire to withdraw Plaintiffs' prior, alternative request to dismiss the case, and DENIED without prejudice to the extent it seeks to amend Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs may seek to amend their claim following the appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 34 .). Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/8/2014. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CARLYN M. JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AT & T CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV00697 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. No. 31) and for “Explanation and Amendment to Previous Filing,” (Doc.
No. 34) which the Court will construe as supplement to the motion for appointment of
counsel and a re-iteration of Plaintiffs’ desire to continue the action in this Court
following the denial of their motion to remand.
In a civil matter such as this one, the Court has discretion to appoint an attorney
when necessary, but there is no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in this
case. Lopez-Lopez v. Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 906 (8th Cir. 2010); Morris v. Dormire, 217
F.3d 556, 558 (8th Cir. 2000). Among the factors the Court considers in deciding
whether to appoint counsel are the factual and legal complexity of the case, the ability of
the pro se party to present both the facts and his legal claims, and the degree to which the
pro se party and the Court would benefit from such an appointment. See Morris, 217
F.3d at 558-59; Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).
Reviewing the record, the Court finds that all three of these factors warrant the

appointment of counsel for Plaintiffs in this case. For this reason, the Court will grant
motion for appointment of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel
is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall appoint counsel pursuant to the Plan for the
Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. A separate Notice of Appointment of Pro Bono
Counsel shall be entered by the Clerk. (Doc. No. 31.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for “Explanation and
Amendment to Previous Filing” is GRANTED, to the extent it reflects a desire to
withdraw Plaintiffs’ prior, alternative request to dismiss the case, and DENIED without
prejudice to the extent it seeks to amend Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs may seek to amend
their claim following the appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 34.)

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 8th day of July, 2014.

-2-