Bailey v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 14

ORDER that Plaintiff's motions seeking the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 13 ) and service of summons (Filing No. 12 ) are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA BRENT SCOTT BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, NEBRASKA HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, CUSTER COUNTY, CUSTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, and AMANDA MAE WILDER-BAKER, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 7:16CV5007 ORDER This matter is before the court on two motions filed by Plaintiff. For the reasons discussed below, both motions will be denied. I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. (Filing No. 13.) 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 at this time. Thus, the request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to reassertion. II. Motion for Service of Summons Plaintiff has moved (Filing No. 12) for service of process at government expense. This motion is premature, as the court has not yet conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Service shall not be ordered until the court determines that Plaintiff has asserted a plausible claim for relief. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s motions seeking the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 13) and service of summons (Filing No. 12) are denied. DATED this 30th day of January, 2017. BY THE COURT: s/ Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge 2

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?