Decoteau v. Houston et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying the Plaintiff's 59 Motion and Order for Clarification and Appointment of Counsel. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER L. DECOTEAU,
Plaintiff,
V.
ROBERT HOUSTON, In his official
capacity only, MICHAEL KENNEY,
Director, In their individual and official
capacities, RANDY KOHL, Medical
Director, In their individual and official
capacities, DIANE SABAKA RHINE,
Warden, In their individual and official
capacities, CHRISTINA FERGUSON,
Doctor, In their individual and official
capacities, CHARLES COREN, Eye
Clinic, In their individual and official
capacities, and KHRYSTYNA
DORITY, In their individual and
official capacities,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3165

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion and Order for
Clarification and Appointment of Counsel.” (Filing No. 59.) Liberally construed,
Plaintiff largely asks the court to reconsider its March 9, 2016 order which denied (1)
Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Complaint; and (2) motion for interrogatories and
document production requests. Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. (Filing
No. 58.)
The court’s March 9, 2016 order explained that Plaintiff would not be given
leave to amend because Plaintiff had not identified any legitimate basis warranting
amendment and allowing amendment would unduly prejudice Defendants. The same

reasoning stands true today. Moreover, in seeking leave to amend, Plaintiff did not
attach a copy of his proposed amended complaint, as required by this court’s local
rules. See NECivR 15.1. Therefore, Plaintiff will not be permitted to file an amended
pleading.
Also, as explained previously, the court will not facilitate the exchange of
discovery between the parties. Requests for discovery should be directly addressed
to Defendants and sent to Defendants’ counsel. In other words, discovery requests
should not be sent to the court, unless such requests are offered as evidentiary
materials.
Finally, the court will not appoint counsel at this time. 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.” Trial courts have
“broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff 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 plaintiff’s ability to
investigate the facts and present his claim.” Id. Having considered these factors, the
request for the appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice to reassertion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion and Order for
Clarification and Appointment of Counsel” (Filing No. 59) is denied.
DATED this 27th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
2