Moore v. City of St. Louis et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 65 is DENIED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/22/18. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD ALLEN MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-01912 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
No. 65). After review of the record in this matter, the Court declines to appoint counsel for
Plaintiff at this time. 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 nonfrivolous 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. After
considering these factors, the Court finds the facts and legal issues involved in this action are not
so complicated that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this time. Moreover, Plaintiff has
demonstrated that he can adequately present his claims to the Court.

1

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [65] is
DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 22nd day of January, 2018.
_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2