Brown v. Dept. of Health & Human Svs. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Brown's Motions for Reconsideration (Filing Nos. 51 and 53 ) are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SVS., et al.,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Cornelius Brown’s Motions for
Reconsideration (Filing Nos. 51 and 53). Brown seeks reconsideration of the court’s
order denying his request for the appointment of counsel and the court’s order
dismissing his claims against TiLynne Bouer, Kristine Boe Simmons, John Kroll,
Nancy Wragge, and Matthew Pokorney.
With respect to Brown’s request for the appointment of counsel, 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.
With respect to Brown’s request that this action be allowed to proceed against
Bouer, Simmons, Kroll, Wragge, and Pokorney, Brown showed no manifest error in
the court’s order dismissing these defendants from this case. For the reasons set forth
in the court’s order dated September 29, 2015, Brown has not stated a claim upon
which relief may be granted against any of these defendants. (See Filing No. 49.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Brown’s Motions for Reconsideration
(Filing Nos. 51 and 53) are denied.
DATED this 28th day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior 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.
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?