Roberts v. Trotta et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that: Plaintiff's Request for Production ofDocuments (Filing No. 12) and 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel are denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
NICK ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TROTTA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3154

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents (Filing No. 12) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 13). On
October 2, 2013, the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. (Filing No. 9.) The next step in Plaintiff’s case is for the court to conduct
an initial review of Plaintiff’s claims to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review
in its normal course of business. No discovery may take place in this case unless the
court determines that this matter may proceed to service of process.
As to Plaintiff’s request for the 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. (quotation and citation omitted). No such
benefit is apparent here at this time. Thus, the request for the appointment of counsel
is denied without prejudice to reassertion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents (Filing No. 12) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 13) are denied
without prejudice to reassertion.
DATED this 18th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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