Parrish v. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 15 ) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file with this Court either a either supplement to her response or i ndicate that her motion for appointment of counsel shall serve as the response no later than July 24, 2015. Failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order may result in dismissal with prejudice. ( Response to Court due by 7/24/2015.). Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 7/13/2015. (NEB)

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

NATIONAL GEOSP ACIALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV426 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs "Memorandum and Order," construed as a
renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 15). Upon review of the record, the
Court will deny Plaintiffs motion.
The background ofthis case is fully set forth in the Memorandum and Order of June 9,
2015 (ECF No. 13), and is incorporated by reference herein. In that Order, the Court denied
Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel, noting that the factual nature and the legal issues
of this case are not complex. The Court indicated that Plaintiff could renew her request if her
circumstances changed. However, Plaintiffs current motion merely reiterates the allegations in
her Complaint and does not set forth persuasive reasons for a court-appointed attorney. As stated
previously, '"[i]ndigent 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)).
Plaintiffs single claim Complaint does not warrant appointed counsel.
The Court also notes that Plaintiffs motion may have been a response to the Show Cause
Order issued on June 23 , 2015, ordering Plaintiff to show cause why she failed to file a timely
response in opposition to Defendant' s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14). To that extent, the
Court will allow Plaintiff additional time to either supplement her response or indicate that her
motion for appointment of counsel shall serve as the response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file with this Court either a either
supplement to her response or indicate that her motion for appointment of counsel shall serve as
the response no later than July 24, 2015. Failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order
may result in dismissal with prejudice.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2015 .

~A~

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2