Nickman v. Zarraga et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 38 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Plaintiff's Motion for Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Filing No. 39 ) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents (Filing No. 40 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JOSHUA M. NICKMAN,
Plaintiff,
V.
JUAN M. ZARRAGA, official
capacity, SHELBY L. RAWLINGS,
official capacity, ANDREW L.
MCLEAN, official capacity, COLTON
J. GUERRERO, official capacity,
MICHAEL TUBBS, official capacity,
JESUS J. RAMIREZ, official capacity,
JAIME LYN CRAFT, official capacity,
JESSICA M. STROUP, official
capacity, SCOTT B. ANDREALA,
official capacity, ERIC JON LITTLE,
official capacity, JONATHAN R.
TRIPP, official capacity, AARON
CRAY, official capacity, TODD
BAHENSKY, official capacity, LACY,
official capacity, HALL COUNTY
CORRECTIONS, official capacity, and
J. JONES, official capacity,
Defendants.

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

8:16CV262

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion (Filing No. 38) seeking 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.” 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 at
this time without prejudice to reassertion.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Interrogatories and Request for Production
of Documents” (Filing No. 39) and “Motion for Production of Documents” (Filing
No. 40). Plaintiff is advised that requests for discovery should be served upon the
parties, not filed with the court. Also, Defendants have yet to file an answer in this
case. Therefore, these motions will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 38) is denied without
prejudice to reassertion.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents (Filing No. 39) is denied.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (Filing No. 40) is
denied.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2