Huskey v. Burris et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 17 ) is DENIED at this time. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on February 6, 2019. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JERRY LEE HUSKEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL BURRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:18-cv-00731-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Jerry Lee Huskey, Jr.’s motion to appoint
counsel. (Docket No. 17). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s motion will be denied at
this time.
“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). Rather, a district court may
appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a
non-frivolous claim…and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the
court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelly, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir.
2018). 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 he can adequately present his
claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor legal issues in this case appear to be

unduly complex. Finally, at this stage in the case, it is not known whether there will be
conflicting testimony. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the
case progresses. For now, however, the motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 17)
is DENIED at this time.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2019.

______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2