Cairns v. Kozel
This text of Cairns v. Kozel (Cairns v. Kozel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL L. CAIRNS, 8:20CV162 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM VS. AND ORDER JAMES KOZEL, Defendant.
Plaintiff has filed an “affidavit” (filing 23), which the court liberally construes as a motion for appointment of counsel. The court cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit explained that “[iJndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.” Trial courts have “broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel, taking into account the factual and legal complexity of the case, the presence or absence of conflicting testimony, and the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts and present his claim.” /d. No such benefit is apparent at this time. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (filing 23) is denied without prejudice. Dated this 19th day of January, 2021. BY THE COURT: Kctiard GF Ac YH Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cairns v. Kozel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cairns-v-kozel-ned-2021.