Dunn v. Arcand et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ 20 ] is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/22/2016. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MITCHELL DUNN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOEY ARCAND, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-128 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc.
No. 20) A review of the file indicates that Plaintiff requested appointment of counsel on
February 9, 2016 and again on March 1, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 6, 10) Plaintiff’s requests for
appointment of counsel were considered in light of relevant factors, see Johnson v. Williams,
788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986) and Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d
1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984), and denied without prejudice on March 2, 2016. (Doc. No. 13) Upon
consideration, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s latest request for appointment of counsel. The
Court finds nothing in the record to cause it to reconsider its previous order denying Plaintiff’s
motions for appointment of counsel. Again, this case is neither factually nor legally complex.
Moreover, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can adequately present his claims to the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [20] is

1

DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 22nd day of July, 2016.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2