Escovedo v. Arnold

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION JOHN ESCOVEDO PLAINTIFF ADC #178572

v. CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00204-BSM PEARCY ARNOLD, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER After careful review of the record, United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 23] is adopted, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion [Doc. No. 19] is granted. John Escovedo’s claims against defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and Escovedo’s amended complaint [Doc. No. 5] is dismissed. Moreover, Escovedo’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 24] is denied as moot because this case is being dismissed. Moreover, even if this case were to continue, the motion to appoint counsel should be denied because pro se litigants do not have a constituional or statutory right to appointment of counsel in civil cases and the facts alleged are not beyond what a pro se litigant can handle. See Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2024.

Brror— 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE