Lingford v. Klemp et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 28 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Ryan A. Lingford. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintif's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 28) is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 11/19/21. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RYAN A. LINGFORD,
DARREN KLEMP, et al.,
Case No. 4:20CV1623 ACL
This matter is before the court on the Complaint of Plaintiff Ryan A. Lingford on his civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ⸹ 1983. Lingford alleges that Defendants used excessive
force against him while he was incarcerated at Farmington Correctional Center. Presently
pending before the Court is Lingford’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 28)
The appointment of counsel in a civil case is governed by 28 U.S.C. ⸹ 1915 (d). It is
within the district court’s sound discretion whether to appoint counsel for those who cannot pay
for an attorney under this provision. See In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir. 1986).
In determining whether a person who is indigent should be appointed counsel, the court
should ascertain “whether the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will
benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003,
1005 (8th Cir. 1984). In addition, the court should consider the factual complexity, the
plaintiff’s ability to investigate facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the plaintiff’s ability
to present her claim, and the complexity of the legal issues. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d
1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 504 U.S. 930, 112 S. Ct. 1995, 118 L.Ed.2d 591 (1992).
After consideration of the above factors, the undersigned concludes that it is not
necessary that counsel be appointed for Lingford at this point in the litigation. The undersigned
finds that Lingford has clearly presented his claims against Defendants, and that it does not
appear that “plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Thus,
Lingford’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel will be denied without prejudice. “Without
prejudice” means that Lingford may later ask for appointment of counsel if he feels it is
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(Doc. 28) is denied without prejudice.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2021.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?