Brodigan v. Roberts et al

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan's Fifth Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 115 ), is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/9/2020. (CLO)

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 123 Filed: 07/09/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 893

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 Fifth Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 115.) He represents that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he is
confined to his cell for twenty-three hours every day. (Id.) He reportedly has no access to the law
library, computer, law books, or other legal material. (Id.)
The Court denied Plaintiff’s fourth motion for appointment of counsel on May 21, 2020,
finding that, despite complications related to the COVID-19 pandemic, “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.” (Doc. 113.)
Once more, 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

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 123 Filed: 07/09/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 894

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)).
While the Court remains sympathetic to the difficulties of presenting a civil suit while in
prison during a global pandemic, it concludes that Plaintiff is capable of adequately presenting his
claims and reiterates that, should the unusual circumstances necessitate additional time to prepare
or respond to discovery requests or briefing, the Court will liberally consider such requests at that
time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan’s Fifth Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 115), is DENIED.

Dated this 9th day of July, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE