Brodigan v. Roberts et al

Filing 135

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff David James Brodigan's Sixth Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 128 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 8/25/20. (JAB)

Case: 4:18-cv-00273-JAR Doc. #: 135 Filed: 08/25/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 2490

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 Sixth Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 128.). Plaintiff reportedly has no access to the law library,
computer, law books, or other legal material, and it remains unclear when Plaintiff will regain such
access. (Id.).
The Court denied Plaintiff’s Fifth Motion for Appointment of Counsel on July 9, 2020,
reiterating 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. 123.).
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. #: 135 Filed: 08/25/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 2491

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 determined that Plaintiff’s suit is primarily a fact-intensive inquiry based on
well-settled law. Plaintiff has demonstrated he is capable of adequately presenting the relevant
facts, and therefore appointment of counsel is not necessary. 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 sufficiently capable of 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 Sixth Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 128) is DENIED.

Dated this 25th day of August, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE