Mitchell v. St. Louis County Police Department et al

Filing 27

ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. [Doc. 4] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/22/2016. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KRISTINA MARIE MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-38 CAS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. “A pro se
litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.” Stevens
v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). When determining whether to appoint counsel for
an indigent litigant, the Court considers several relevant factors, such as the complexity of the case,
the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and
the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Id.
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not
warranted. This case is neither factually nor legally complex, and plaintiff does not contend that she
is unable to investigate the facts of this case or present her claims. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
[Doc. 4]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

22nd

day of June, 2016.