Harris v. Esper

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 3 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/12/18. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LILLIE HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

v.
MARKT. ESPER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4: 18-cv-00690-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Lillie Harris' motion for appointment of
counsel (Docket No. 3). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion will be denied
without prejudice.
"A pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a
civil case." Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). See also Ward v. Smith, 721
F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013) ("In civil cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to
appointed counsel...Rather a court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
afford counsel"). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, the
Court considers relevant factors, such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se
litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro
se litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.
2006).
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated, at this point, that she can adequately present

her claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to
be complex.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (Docket
\

No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

6'Dated this/J.-daY of July, 2018.

.ROSS
D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE