Boudreaux v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-01070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

CORALIA C. BOUDREAUX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-01070-HEA ) EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon self-represented plaintiff Coralia C. Boudreaux’s (1) application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs, and (2) motion to appoint counsel. Based on the financial information provided in the application, the application will be granted. Plaintiff’s filing fee will be waived. Additionally, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to issue process or cause process to issue upon plaintiff’s complaint as to defendant Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. at the address of its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 5661 Telegraph Road, Suite 4B, St. Louis, MO 63129-4275. Finally, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel will be denied at this time. In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim…and where the nature of the

litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, a court considers relevant factors

such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated, at this point, that she can adequately present her claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the

legal issues in this case appear to be complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in the

district court without prepaying fees or costs is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process to issue upon plaintiff's complaint as to defendant Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. at the address of its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 5661 Telegraph Road, Suite 4B, St. Louis, MO 63129-4275. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 3] Dated this 22" day of July, 2025.

utile — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-