Wilson v. Sabatka-Rine et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 21 the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HAROLD B. WILSON,
DIANE SABATKA-RINE, MELVIN )
ROUF, et al.,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel. (Filing No. 21.) 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). No such benefit
is apparent here. The request for the appointment of counsel is therefore denied
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (filing no. 21) is denied.
DATED this 17th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or W eb 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 W eb 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.
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?