Williams v. Mitchell et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 19 ] is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for extension of time [Doc. # 21 ] is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins on March 27, 2018. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JARED MARTEL WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1282 NCC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel and for “extension of time” to proceed in this
lawsuit. After considering the motions and the pleadings, the motions will be denied without
prejudice.
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Jefferson City Correctional Center, brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. He alleges that he
was subjected to excessive force by several correctional officers in July of 2012 when he was
incarcerated at the St. Louis City Justice Center. Plaintiff also asserts that two officers failed to
intervene in the altercation and should be held individually liable for their actions.
In his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff asserts that because he is in prison, his
ability to litigate this case will be greatly limited once discovery and trial begin. However, at this
stage of the litigation, plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint, and he
has demonstrated that he is able to represent himself. See Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing,
728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this
case are complex.
Once defendants file their answer or other responsive pleading in this matter, the Court
will be able to ascertain more about the progression of this case. After this time, the Court will

entertain future motions for appointment of counsel. Moreover, at this time, plaintiff is not
required to file a responsive brief or other pleading before the Court, so his motion for extension
of time will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
#19] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time [Doc. #21] is
DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2018.

/s/ Noelle C. Collins
NOELLE C. COLLINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-