Meredith v. McDonald

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Marian Marie Meredith's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF # 4 ] is denied without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/15/2015. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARIAN MARIE MEREDITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT MCDONALD, Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV1007 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Marian Marie Meredith moves for the appointment of counsel to assist
her in this employment discrimination action. Because plaintiff has demonstrated an
adequate ability to present her claims to this Court, I will deny the motion.
Plaintiff brings this employment discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.
Plaintiff now seeks the appointment of counsel to assist her with her claims. In
deciding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff, I should consider
relevant factors, including the factual complexity of the case, the ability of the
indigent to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability
of the indigent to present her claims. Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir.
1998).

The facts of this case are not complex. Plaintiff alleges that she was
discriminated against in her employment on account of her race and age and in
retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. A reading of the complaint shows
that plaintiff is able to investigate crucial facts. She has adequately identified the
circumstances giving rise to her claims and the bases upon which she contends she is
entitled to relief. With respect to the existence of conflicting testimony, I note that
this case is in its preliminary stages. Whether and to what extent conflicting
testimony exists with respect to the substance of plaintiff’s claims will be evident
upon further proceedings in the case. Finally, the complexity of the legal issues does
not merit an appointment of counsel at this time. As set out above, plaintiff claims
that she was unlawfully discriminated in her employment and suffered retaliation.
These matters do not involve overly complex issues of law.
Because the factual nature of this case is not complex and plaintiff has
provided the Court with details giving rise to her claims, I find that plaintiff is able to
adequately present her claims to the Court.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Marian Marie Meredith’s Motion
for Appointment of Counsel [ECF #4] is denied without prejudice.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of October, 2015.
-2-