Calmese v. MO. Dept. of Corrections

E.D. Missouri

Calmese v. MO. Dept. of Corrections

DecidedJuly 9, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00049

StatusUnknown

This text of Calmese v. MO. Dept. of Corrections (Calmese v. MO. Dept. of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calmese v. MO. Dept. of Corrections, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION KHELBY CALMESE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-CV-00049 HEA ) MISSOURI DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Khelby Calmese’s motion for appointment of counsel. [ECF No. 3]. The motion will be denied, without prejudice, 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). See also Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a] pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case”). 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 he can adequately present his 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 motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED, without prejudice, at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 9" day of July, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION KHELBY CALMESE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-CV-00049 HEA ) MISSOURI DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Khelby Calmese’s motion for appointment of counsel. [ECF No. 3]. The motion will be denied, without prejudice, 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). See also Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a] pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case”). 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 he can adequately present his 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 motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED, without prejudice, at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 9" day of July, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Calmese v. MO. Dept. of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calmese-v-mo-dept-of-corrections-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack