Brodigan v. Roberts et al

Filing 110

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan's Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in Support of Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 105 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 103 ), is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 4/30/20. (JAB)

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 110 Filed: 04/30/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 850

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID JAMES BRODIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BEN E. SWINK, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-cv-00273-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on two motions filed by Plaintiff David James Brodigan:
Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 103); and Motion for Leave to File Memorandum
in Support of Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 105).
Plaintiff alleges numerous violations of his civil rights stemming from the alleged denial
of medical treatment for an inguinal hernia. (See Doc. 9 at 3.) Upon initial review, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, finding that the factual and legal issues of
the case were not complex and that Plaintiff was able to represent his own interests. (Id. at 9.)
Since then, Plaintiff sought reconsideration of that denial. (Docs. 34, 54.) The Court denied the
motion, reiterating its finding that Plaintiff’s grasp of the straightforward factual and legal issues
demonstrates his ability to proceed pro se. (Doc. 62.)
Plaintiff now asks a third time for appointment of counsel, citing the recent restrictions
placed on him due to the Corona Virus pandemic. (Doc. 103). He proffers a memorandum in
support as well as an affidavit from a fellow inmate stating that he can no longer assist Plaintiff
with legal matters. (Doc. 105; see also Doc. 99 at 3-4.)

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 110 Filed: 04/30/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 851

There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases. See Philips v. Jasper
Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). In determining whether to appoint counsel in a civil
case, the Court should consider the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the indigent
person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent
person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments. Id. (citing Edgington v.
Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 85 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995)).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion and his memorandum in support. It goes
without saying that the current circumstances complicate matters for litigants, especially confined
litigants. However, the factual and legal issues present in this case remain the same as does the
Court’s assessment of Plaintiff’s capabilities. Of note, the Court recently extended the discovery
deadline by ninety days; an extension that should significantly address the logistical challenges
posed by the current pandemic. (Doc. 90.) Given that extra time, the Court believes Plaintiff can
continue to represent his own interests in this case despite recent external events. The Court takes
note of the proffered affidavit but finds it of little import to its analysis.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan’s Motion for Leave to
File Memorandum in Support of Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 105), is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(Doc. 103), is DENIED.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE