Dean v. Shulkin et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration of appointment of counsel. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 5/2/18. (DJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MILAN CARTER DEAN,

4:17-CV-04137-KES

Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
DARWIN GOODSPEED, SIOUX FALLS
VA HOSPITAL DIRECTOR, AND
DR. SRIR KASINATHAN,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

Defendants.
Plaintiff, Milan Carter Dean, moves the court to reconsider its order
denying his motion to appoint counsel. Docket 31. Dean has also submitted a
letter requesting the court to respond. Docket 32. “A pro se litigant has no
statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case.”
Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). In determining whether
to appoint counsel to a pro se litigant’s civil case, the district court considers
the complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent litigant to investigate the
facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the indigent's ability to
present his claim. Id. Dean’s claims are not complex, and he appears able to
adequately present his claims at this time. Therefore, his motion (Docket 31) is
denied.

The court is aware that this situation may change as litigation
progresses. As the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals instructs, the court will
“continue to be alert to the possibility that, because of procedural complexities
or other reasons, later developments in the case may show either that counsel
should be appointed, or that strict procedural requirements should, in fairness,
be relaxed to some degree.” Williams v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir.
1993).
DATED May 2, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE