Doe v. Knutson
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
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
IT IS ORDERED:
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)
Dated this 17th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Susan M. Bazis
United States Magistrate Judge
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?