Adams v. USA, No. 4:2016cv00988 - Document 14 (E.D. Mo. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED without prejudice. 12 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/17/18. (CLA) cc: petitioner
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ANTIONIO ADAMS, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:16CV988 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel. After considering the motion and the pleadings, the motion is denied without prejudice to refiling at a later time. 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. Plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint. However, he has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 17th day of April, 2018. ________________________________ HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
