Emilio v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Case Progression 63 is denied for the reasons explained above. The clerk's office is directed to send to Plaintiff copies of Filing Numbers 55 and 62 together with this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 64 is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party as directed) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PAVON EMILIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT P. HOUSTON, Director,
FRED BRITTEN, Warden, and L.
ANTHOLZ, Officer,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3088

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Pavon Emilio’s Motion to Stay Case
Progression (Filing No. 63) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 64). The
court will deny both motions.
In Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Case Progression, Plaintiff asks for an order
staying progression of this case until after the court rules on Plaintiff’s motion for an
order compelling discovery. The court very recently denied Plaintiff’s discovery
motion without prejudice to reassertion of a motion brought pursuant to Rule 56(d)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Filing No. 62.) In addition, on
December 2, 2014, the court cancelled the final pretrial conference that was then
scheduled for March 19, 2015, pending resolution of Defendants’ summary judgment
motion. (See Filing No. 55.) Thus, an order staying progression of this case is
unnecessary at this time. The court will direct the clerk’s office to send to Plaintiff
copies of Filing Numbers 55 and 62.
With respect to Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel, the court
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. (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). No such benefit is apparent here at this time. Thus, the request for the
appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice to reassertion.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Case Progression (Filing No. 63) is denied for
the reasons explained above. The clerk’s office is directed to send to Plaintiff copies
of Filing Numbers 55 and 62 together with this Memorandum and Order.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 64) is denied without
prejudice to reassertion.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
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.

2