Bowers v. Mullen et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Petition for Discovery (Doc. 28 ) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 29 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 2/10/15. (JWD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DAVID A. MULLEN, et al.,
Case No. 4:14-CV-01185-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Discovery (Doc. 28) and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 29). Defendants responded (Docs. 30, 31).
In his Petition for Discovery, Plaintiff states that in the fall of 2014, he requested a
complete copy of his medical file from Tipton Correctional Center. He indicates that his request
was denied due to a lack of funds for payment. Plaintiff therefore asks that the Court recognize
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and order the Missouri Department of Corrections’ Medical
Staff to release his full and complete medical file to him. Plaintiff filed his Motion on January
23, 2015, nine days after entry of the Case Management Order in this case. Pursuant to the Case
Management Order, preliminary disclosures shall be filed no later than February 15, 2015 and
thereafter the Parties may engage in discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to be premature and will deny it without prejudice.
With respect to Plaintiff=s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, there is no constitutional
or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing,
728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, courts consider
factors that include whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his
prayer for relief, whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel,
whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff=s
allegations, and whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See
Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319,
1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
After considering Plaintiff=s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, his second such
request, in view of the relevant factors, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues presented in
the instant case are not so complex as to warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. In
addition, his pleadings indicate that he is capable of presenting the facts and legal issues without
the assistance of counsel. Plaintiff=s Motion for Appointment of Counsel will therefore be
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition for Discovery (Doc. 28) is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
29) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2015.
JOHN A. ROSS
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?