Doe v. Knutson

Filing 25

ORDER that Defendant's motions for appointment of counsel (Filing Nos. 19 , 23 ) are denied. Defendant's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing Nos. 20 , 24 ) are denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV97

vs.
ORDER
SHAD KNUTSON,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motions for appointment of counsel
(Filing Nos. 19, 23) and motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing Nos. 20, 24.)
The motions will be denied.
“Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed
counsel.” Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996). Trial courts have “broad discretion
to decide whether both the [indigent litigant] 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 [indigent litigant’s] ability to investigate the facts and present
his claim.” Id. Having considered these factors, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is
not warranted at this time.
The Court interprets Defendant’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as a
mechanism by which Defendant is attempting to obtain counsel. Thus, these motions will be
denied.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s motions for appointment of counsel (Filing Nos. 19, 23) are denied.

2.

Defendant’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing Nos. 20, 24)
are denied.

Dated this 17th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Susan M. Bazis
United States Magistrate Judge