Proby v. Bullock et al, No. 4:2014cv01355 - Document 83 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motions for appointment of counsel [Doc. #71] are DENIEDWITHOUT PREJUDICE. 71 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/16/15. (CLA) (Main Document 83 replaced on 11/16/2015) (CLA).
Download PDF
Proby v. Bullock et al Doc. 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION GEORGE PROBY, JR., Plaintiff, v. D. R. BULLOCK, et. Al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:14cv1355 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #71]. The motion will be denied, without prejudice. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s allegations; and (4) whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322–23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005. After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally complex. Moreover, it is evident that Plaintiff is able to present claims. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel [Doc. #71] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated this 16th day of November, 2015. HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-