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)

Download PDF
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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?