O'Donnell v. Mitchell
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Affidavit in Support (ECF No. 4 ) is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 2/2/2017. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
Affidavit in Support (ECF No. 4).
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Nelson v.
Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F .2d 1003 , 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to
appoint counsel, courts consider factors that include whether the plaintiff has presented
non-frivolous allegations supporting his prayer for relief, whether the plaintiff will substantially
benefit from the appointment of counsel, whether there is a need to further investigate and present
the facts related to the plaintiff's allegations, and whether the factual and legal issues presented by
the action are complex. See Battle v. Armantrout, 902 F.2d 701 , 702 (8th Cir. 1990); Johnson v.
Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
After considering Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel, in view of the relevant
factors, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues presented in the instant case are not so
complex as to warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. In addition, the pleadings filed by
Tammy O'Donnell, indicate that she is capable of presenting the facts and legal issues without the
assistance of counsel. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel will therefore be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
Affidavit in Support (ECF No. 4) is DENIED, without prejudice.
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2017.
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?