Brantely v. BNSF Railway Company
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying the Plaintiff's 47 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KENNETH BRANTLEY,
Plaintiff,
4:12CV3215
vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendant.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for court-appointed counsel. (Filing No. 47). A civil litigant
has no constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed attorney. The court may, however,
make such an appointment at its discretion. Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996). A
trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both a pro se party and the court will benefit
from the appointment of counsel, taking into account the factual and legal complexity of the
case, the presence or absence of conflicting testimony, and the pro se party’s ability to
investigate the facts and present or defend the claims. Id.
Considering all these factors, the court finds appointment of counsel is not warranted in
this case. The plaintiff has presented no evidence indicating he has attempted to locate counsel
who will represent his interests, has repeatedly stated he is obtaining assistance from counsel
despite no entry of appearance by counsel on his behalf, the claims and defenses at issue are not
factually or legally complex, and based on the record, the plaintiff is able to adequately litigate
his claims and defenses. Id. See also, 28 U.S.C § 1915(a).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel, (filing no. 47), is denied.
September 12, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
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?