Buchanan v. Hurt et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JESSICO BUCHANAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HURT, Corporal, All defendants sued )
in their individual and official
)
capacity, KLINE, Officer, All
)
defendants sued in their individual
)
and official capacity, STEINBECK,
)
Sgt., All defendants sued in their
)
individual and official capacity,
)
DENNIS BAKEWELL, All
)
defendants sued in their individual
)
and official capacity, and ROBERT
)
HOUSTON, All defendants sued in
)
their individual and official capacity, )
)
Defendants.
)

4:13CV3172

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of
Counsel (Filing No. 41). As previously explained to Plaintiff, 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.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 39) and Plaintiff’s Brief in
opposition to the motion (Filing No. 42) remain pending.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment
of Counsel (Filing No. 41) is denied at this time.
DATED this 7th day of May, 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