Garten v. Keith County Attorney's Office et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motions seeking the appointment of counsel 20 and the production of documents 21 are denied. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. Failure to comply as directed will result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk's office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the court's Memorandum and Orde r dated July 18, 2014, together with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: September 8, 2014: check for amended complaint; dismiss if none.Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party as directed) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHARLES GARTEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH COUNTY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV24

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On June 18, 2014, the court
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. On the court’s own motion, the
court gave Plaintiff 30 days in which to file an amended complaint that stated a claim
upon which relief may be granted against Defendants. (Filing No. 19.) In response,
Plaintiff filed motions seeking the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 20) and the
production of various documents (Filing No. 21).
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. Thus, the request for the appointment of
counsel is denied without prejudice to reassertion.
In addition, Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents is denied. This
matter will not proceed to service of process or discovery unless so ordered by this court
after review of an amended complaint. Here, Plaintiff failed to file an amended
complaint within 30 days as directed by this court.

On the court’s own motion, the court will give Plaintiff an additional 30 days in
which to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court’s Memorandum and
Order dated June 18, 2014 (Filing No. 19).
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motions seeking the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 20) and
the production of documents (Filing No. 21) are denied.
2.
On the court’s own motion, the court will extend the time in which
Plaintiff has to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court’s Memorandum
and Order dated June 18, 2014 (Filing No. 19). Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint within 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order.
3.
Failure to comply as directed will result in dismissal of this case for want
of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4.
The clerk’s office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the court’s
Memorandum and Order dated July 18, 2014, together with a copy of this Memorandum
and Order.
5.
The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline
using the following text: September 8, 2014: check for amended complaint; dismiss if
none.

2

DATED this 4th day of August, 2014.
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.
3