Davlin v. Miller et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying the Plaintiff's 2 12 17 and 20 Motions to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CLIFFORD J. DAVLIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TIM MILLER, Unit Manager,
)
Housing Unit # 3, Nebraska
)
State Penitentiary; and
)
O. PEREZ, Case Worker,
)
Housing Unit # 3, Nebraska
)
State Penitentiary, and in
)
their individual and official )
capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV396

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motions
to Appoint Counsel (Filing Nos. 2, 12, 17, and 20).
cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases.

The Court

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).

The

Court has carefully reviewed the record in this matter and finds
that no such benefit is apparent here.

The requests for the

appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint
Counsel (Filing Nos. 2, 12, 17, and 20) are denied.
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

*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-