Parrish v. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on June 9, 2015. (BRP)

..
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KRISTIE DANETTE PARRISH,
Plaintiff,
v.

NATIONAL GEOSPACIALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV426 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Upon
review of the record, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion.

Background
On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Employment Discrimination Complaint in federal
court, alleging discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. Plaintiff contends that a white female
employee was allowed to reduce her work status to part-time to care for her sick mother, but
Defendant denied Plaintiff's request for part-time status in order to care for her three disabled
sons. (Compl. Ex. 1 pp. 6-7, ECF No. 1-1) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant eventually
terminated her employment for absenteeism. Plaintiff filed an informal complaint with the
National Geospacial-Intelligence Agency ("NGA"), Office of Diversity Management and Equal
Employment Opportunity on September 15, 2014. (Id. at p. 16) She received a letter on October
20, 2014 advising her of the available procedures for advancing her claims. (Id.) On or about
November 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint of Discrimination in the Federal Government.

(Id. at pp. 2-4)

On March 26, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
finding that she was unable to pay the filing fee. (Order of 3/26/ 15, ECF No. 7) Currently
pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 4) Plaintiff claims that
because of her poverty, she is unable to pay a reasonable attorney fee or obtain legal counsel,
despite diligent efforts to do so. (Id.) Upon review of the motion, the Court will deny Plaintiffs
request for court-appointment counsel.
Discussion
"'Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed
counsel."' Davis v. Scott, 94 F .3d 444, 44 7 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Edgington v. Missouri Dep 't
of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995)). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an
indigent plaintiff, the Court should consider the factual and legal complexity of the case, the
existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts
and present her claim. Id. (citing Swope v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 852 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Upon review of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time. The facts of this case are not complex. Plaintiff raises only one claim,
that Defendant discriminated against her based on her race in refusing to grant her request for
part-time status and eventually discharging her for absenteeism. Further, the undersigned notes
that Plaintiff has thus far clearly articulated and presented her legal claims to the Court, and she
appears able to investigate the facts of her case. Because the factual nature and the legal issues
of this case are not complex, the undersigned finds that at this time Plaintiffs motion should be
denied. Plaintiff is free to renew her motion in the event that such circumstances change in the
future.
Accordingly,

2

•

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this

9th

~d-Jffe

day of June, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3