Hunt v. Houston et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying the Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Reconsideration and 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party) (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT E. HUNT,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

4:11CV3086
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (filing no. 33) and
Motion for Reconsideration (filing no. 32). As the court has previously informed Plaintiff, it
cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996),
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a
constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. . . . The trial court has broad discretion to
decide whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel . . .”
Id. (quotation and citation omitted). At this stage of the proceedings, no such benefit is apparent
here. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is again denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the court’s previous denial of his request for a
temporary restraining order. (Filing No. 32.) The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion
and finds no good cause for reconsideration of any portion of its September 6, 2011, Memorandum
and Order which denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Filing No. 10.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (filing no.
33) and Motion for Reconsideration (filing no. 32) are denied.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility
for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work
or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.