Brodigan v. Roberts et al

Filing 113

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan's Fourth Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 112 ), is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/21/20. (JAB)

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 113 Filed: 05/21/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 859

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 Plaintiff David James Brodigan’s Fourth Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 112.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s third such motion on April 30,
2020, finding that “the factual and legal issues of the case were not complex and that Plaintiff was
able to represent his own interests” despite the fact that complications related to the COVID-19
pandemic “complicate matters for litigants, especially confined litigants.” (Doc. 110.) The Court
also noted that it had recently extended the discovery deadline and that the additional time would
help mitigate the difficulties created by the pandemic. (Id.)
For the same reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s renewed request for counsel. 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)).

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 113 Filed: 05/21/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 860

In support of his pending motion, Plaintiff represents that he has lost access to the prison
law library and that he has been separated from the fellow inmate who had previously helped him
pursue his case. (Doc. 112.) While the Court is sympathetic to those difficulties, it concludes that
Plaintiff remains capable of presenting his claims. Further, should the unusual circumstances
necessitate additional time to prepare or respond to discovery requests or briefing, the Court will
consider such requests at that time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan’s Fourth Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 112), is DENIED.

Dated this 21st day of May, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE