Gebregziabher v. Slay

E.D. Missouri

Gebregziabher v. Slay

DecidedApril 21, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-00470

StatusUnknown

This text of Gebregziabher v. Slay (Gebregziabher v. Slay) 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

Gebregziabher v. Slay, (E.D. Mo. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

SIMON GEBREGZIABHER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:19-CV-00470-SPM ) MARCUS BUSH, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 29). “There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.” Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). The appointment of counsel for an indigent plaintiff in a civil matter lies within the discretion of the Court. Id. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”). “The standard for determining the necessity of appointed counsel is whether both the indigent litigant and the court would benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrs., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). This determination requires consideration of several factors, including “the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments.” Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794. After consideration of the relevant factors in this case, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. The action appears to involve straightforward questions of fact and no particularly complex issues of law. Plaintiff appears to be able to clearly present and

−1− investigate his claims. He has filed two very clear, well-organized complaints, showing that he is capable of organizing his thoughts and presenting his claims to the Court. The Court concludes that the appointment of counsel would not be of sufficient benefit to the Court or to Plaintiff to watrant appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 29) is DENIED, without prejudice.

Mio O02 SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated this 21st day of April, 2020.

□

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

SIMON GEBREGZIABHER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:19-CV-00470-SPM ) MARCUS BUSH, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 29). “There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.” Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). The appointment of counsel for an indigent plaintiff in a civil matter lies within the discretion of the Court. Id. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”). “The standard for determining the necessity of appointed counsel is whether both the indigent litigant and the court would benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrs., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). This determination requires consideration of several factors, including “the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments.” Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794. After consideration of the relevant factors in this case, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. The action appears to involve straightforward questions of fact and no particularly complex issues of law. Plaintiff appears to be able to clearly present and

−1− investigate his claims. He has filed two very clear, well-organized complaints, showing that he is capable of organizing his thoughts and presenting his claims to the Court. The Court concludes that the appointment of counsel would not be of sufficient benefit to the Court or to Plaintiff to watrant appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 29) is DENIED, without prejudice.

Mio O02 SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated this 21st day of April, 2020.

□

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gebregziabher v. Slay, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gebregziabher-v-slay-moed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack