Watson v. Moore et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to amend his complaint by interlineation is [Doc. # 9 -1] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs amendment by interlineation shall be due to this Court no later than March 7, 2016. The amendment by interlineation shall be filed in compliance with the instructions set forth in the Courts Memorandum and Order issued on December 22, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 9 -2] is DENIED without prejudice at this time. ( Response to Court due by 3/7/2016.). Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 01/22/2016. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PIERRE WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV1241 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to amend his
complaint, by interlineation, to name the capacity under which he is suing defendants Moore,
Hayden and Nurse Erica Unknown. Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel.
The Court will grant plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to amend his complaint by
interlineation, in compliance with this Court’s December 22, 2015 Memorandum and Order.
However, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied, without prejudice, at this
time.
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v.
Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to
appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has
presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the
plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to
further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s allegations; and (4) whether the
factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d
1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.

Although it appears that plaintiff’s claims against some of the defendants may have merit,
plaintiff has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court.
Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex. Moreover, it does
not appear that much investigative work will have to be done in this case. Thus, at this time, it
does not appear that counsel is warranted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to amend
his complaint by interlineation is [Doc. #9-1] is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s amendment by

interlineation shall be due to this Court no later than March 7, 2016. The amendment by
interlineation shall be filed in compliance with the instructions set forth in the Court’s
Memorandum and Order issued on December 22, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
#9-2] is DENIED without prejudice at this time.
Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-