Maybin v. Corizon Healthcare et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 76 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/2/17. (CAR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WILLIAM B. MAYBIN,
CORIZON HEALTHCARE, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff William B. Maybin for the
appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 76). The motion will be denied without prejudice.
“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) (citation omitted). The
decision to appoint counsel is therefore within the Court’s discretion.
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 the factual complexity of the case, the
plaintiff’s ability to investigate the facts and present his claim, whether the plaintiff can afford to
hire an attorney and has made a good-faith effort to retain one, and whether the nature of the
litigation is such that the plaintiff and the Court would benefit from the assistance of counsel.
Stevens, 146 F.3d at 546; Slaughter v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 590 (8th Cir. 1984).
After careful consideration of the instant motion, the Court concludes that the
appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally
complex. Throughout this litigation, plaintiff has demonstrated himself to be well able to present
his claims to the Court. Finally, while plaintiff may be unable to afford an attorney, he has made
no attempt to demonstrate that he has made a good-faith effort to retain one. For all of these
reasons, it cannot be said at this time that the appointment of counsel would be sufficiently
beneficial to plaintiff and the Court. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. If he
wishes, he may file a motion to appoint counsel in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 76)
is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2017.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?