Clark v. USA, No. 4:2019cv02305 - Document 3 (E.D. Mo. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movants motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 2 ] is DENIED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 08/08/2019. (AAS)
Download PDF
Clark v. USA Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JURMONT CLARK, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:19CV2305 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Movant moves for appointment of counsel. After considering the motion and the pleadings, the motion will be denied without prejudice at this 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 movant has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the movant will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the movant’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. Movant 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. Thus, the Court will deny movant’s motion for counsel at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #2] is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 8th day of August, 2019. HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-