Owen v. Lisenbe et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, [Doc. No. 32 ], is denied.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel, [Doc. No. 34 ], Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel, [D oc. No. 37 ], and Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel, [Doc. No. 39 ], are denied.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Request Action by the Court for Cause, [Doc. No. 35 ], and Plaintiffs Motion for Action for Cause, [Doc. No. 36 ], are denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/24/18. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RONNIE LEE OWEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD LISENBE and
MATT SHULTS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV1547 HEA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, [Doc. No. 32], Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, [Doc.
No. 34], Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Action by the Court for Cause, [Doc. No.
35], Plaintiff’s Motion for Action for Cause, [Doc. No. 36], Plaintiff’s Motion to
Appoint Counsel, [Doc. No. 37], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, [Doc.
No. 39].
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Plaintiff requests a restraining order against employees at the MCFP
Springfield facility in which he had been housed. The Motion seeks relief from
this Court for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights by employees, in particular,
Counselor Felicia Williams, for the alleged failure of Counselor Williams to turn
over legal documents sent by defendants herein to Plaintiff.
No employee of MCFP-Springfield is a party to this action, and therefore,
this Court is without jurisdiction over anyone involved in the alleged violations.

Likewise, none of the allegations contained in the Motion have direct connection
with the subject matter of this case, rather, Plaintiff complains that Counselor
Williams violated his rights in failing to surrender to him his legal mail. These
alleged violations raise different issues and should be the subject of a different
lawsuit, if Plaintiff desires to bring the alleged violations before the Court.
Likewise, the Court does not have jurisdiction regarding the administration
of the Bureau of Prisons and the procedures for delivering legal mail to inmates.
The Bureau of Prisons indeed has an internal grievance procedure which Plaintiff
should follow prior to raising these issues in this Court. Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order is therefore denied.
Motions to Appoint Counsel
There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil
cases. 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 (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations
supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially
benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further
investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s allegations; and (4)
whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322–23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at
1005.

2

After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of
counsel is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally
complex. The Motions to Appoint Counsel are denied.
Motions for Action
In his “Motions for Action,” Plaintiff seeks rulings from the Court on
pending Motions. Since the Motions are the subject of this Opinion, Memorandum
and Order, the Motions for Action are moot and are therefore denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, [Doc. No. 32], is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel,
[Doc. No. 34], Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, [Doc. No. 37], and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, [Doc. No. 39], are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Action by
the Court for Cause, [Doc. No. 35], and Plaintiff’s Motion for Action for Cause,
[Doc. No. 36], are denied as moot.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3