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)

Download PDF
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

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?