Jones v. Gate Gourmet

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4 ) is DENIED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 4/10/2017. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DEMETRIUS JONES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
GATE GOURMET,
Defendant.

No. 4:16CV02142 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 4). Upon review of the record, the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion.
On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against Defendant with the
Missouri Commission on Human Rights ("MCHR") and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC"). Plaintiff received a Notice of Right-to-Sue Letter on October 16, 2016.
(Compl.

iii!

7-8, ECF No. 1) On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Employment

Discrimination Complaint in federal court, alleging discrimination on the basis of race in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, and in
violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S .C.A. §§ 201. (Compl. , ECF No. 1) Plaintiff alleges the
terms and conditions of his employment differed from those of similar employees, and he also
alleges harassment and retaliation. (Compl.

if 10)

Specifically, Plaintiff, who was employed as a

driver, alleges that Defendant reduced Plaintiffs rate of pay from $13 .79 to $11.08 per hour
without any notification because Plaintiff declined Defendant' s offer of a different driver
position. (Compl.

if 12)

Plaintiff contends such pay reduction forced Plaintiff to quit his current

position on July 12, 2016. (Compl.

if 12)

Currently, Plaintiff claims his poverty prevents him

from obtaining an attorney and paying a reasonable attorney fee, despite diligent efforts to obtain
such counsel. (ECF No. 4) After reviewing the motion, the affidavit in support, and the
Complaint, the Court will deny Plaintiffs request for court-appointed counsel.
"Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed
counsel." Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Edgington v. Missouri Dep 't
of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995)). "The trial court has broad discretion to decide
whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel, taking into
account the factual and legal complexity of the case, the presence or absence of conflicting
testimony, and the plaintiffs ability to investigate the facts and present his claim." Id.
Upon review of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court finds the appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time. Plaintiff only raises one claim, that Defendant reduced Plaintiffs hourly
pay because Plaintiff refused to accept a different position, allegedly in violation of Title VII and
the Equal Pay Act. Not only has Plaintiff clearly articulated and presented the relevant facts and
legal claims, but neither the facts nor legal claims are complex. Additionally, Plaintiff appears
able to further investigate the facts of his case. Based on the simplicity of Plaintiffs Complaint,
the Court will deny the Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel at this time. Plaintiff may
renew his motion in the event such circumstances change in the future.
According! y,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.

- ~~

Dated this 10th day of April 2017.

~TE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2