Griffin v. Missouri Deparment of Corrections

E.D. Missouri

Griffin v. Missouri Deparment of Corrections

DecidedOctober 18, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-00215

StatusUnknown

This text of Griffin v. Missouri Deparment of Corrections (Griffin v. Missouri Deparment 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

Griffin v. Missouri Deparment of Corrections, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SHERMAN GRIFFIN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00215-SRC ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT ) OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent. )

Memorandum and Order This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Sherman Griffin’s [13] Motion to Appoint Magistrate Judge and Counsel. 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 [litigant] has stated a non-frivolous claim…and where the nature of the litigation is such that [the litigant] 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. Petitioner has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses, if appropriate. At this time the Court denies, without prejudice, Petitioner’s [13] Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner also moves to appoint a magistrate judge. Doc. 13. Because the deadline has passed for Petitioner to consent to jurisdiction by magistrate judge, the Court denies the motion. See 28 U.S.C. 636; 18 U.S.C. 3401; E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.08(a).

So Ordered this 18th day of October, 2021.

STEPHENR.CLARK ss 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 SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

SHERMAN GRIFFIN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00215-SRC ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT ) OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent. )

Memorandum and Order This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Sherman Griffin’s [13] Motion to Appoint Magistrate Judge and Counsel. 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 [litigant] has stated a non-frivolous claim…and where the nature of the litigation is such that [the litigant] 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. Petitioner has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses, if appropriate. At this time the Court denies, without prejudice, Petitioner’s [13] Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner also moves to appoint a magistrate judge. Doc. 13. Because the deadline has passed for Petitioner to consent to jurisdiction by magistrate judge, the Court denies the motion. See 28 U.S.C. 636; 18 U.S.C. 3401; E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.08(a).

So Ordered this 18th day of October, 2021.

STEPHENR.CLARK ss UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Griffin v. Missouri Deparment of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-missouri-deparment-of-corrections-moed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack