Thomas v. Steele

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter is before the Court upon petitioner John Scott Thomas, III's Response to Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 6 ) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 7 ). Petitioners averments in his response are well-taken, and the Court determines that the petition survives preliminary review. Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. (See Full Order.) Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 3/28/2017. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN SCOTT THOMAS, III,
Petitioner,
v.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-cv-775-CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon petitioner John Scott Thomas, III’s Response to
Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 6) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 7).
Petitioner’s averments in his response are well-taken, and the Court determines that the petition
survives preliminary review. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel 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). When determining whether
to appoint counsel for a pro se litigant, the Court considers factors such as the complexity of the
case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting
testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his claims to the Court. Id.
The facts of the present case appear relatively straight-forward, and appear to primarily
involve questions of law. Further, in both the petition and in the response presently before the
Court, petitioner has demonstrated himself to be well able to investigate relevant facts and
clearly and logically present his claims. Whether, and to what extent, conflicting testimony
exists with respect to the substance of petitioner’s claims will be more evident upon further

proceedings. At this stage, the factors do not weigh in favor of appointment of counsel. The
Court will therefore deny the motion for the appointment of counsel, without prejudice. If
appropriate at a later stage of this case, petitioner may file a motion to appoint counsel that
addresses the foregoing factors.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel
(Docket No. 7) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 28th day of March, 2017.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2