Jerrod v. Phillips

E.D. Missouri

Jerrod v. Phillips

DecidedJanuary 29, 2021

Docket4:19-cv-03131

StatusUnknown

This text of Jerrod v. Phillips (Jerrod v. Phillips) 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

Jerrod v. Phillips, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

HERMAN M. JERROD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:19-cv-03131-AGF ) ZACHARY PHILLIPS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (Doc. No. 21), and Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 25). There is no constitutional right for a pro se plaintiff to have counsel appointed in a civil case, although the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when necessary. Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 909 (8th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d. 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). Among the factors a court should consider in making this determination are the factual and legal complexity of the case, the ability of the plaintiff to present the facts and his claims, and the degree to which the plaintiff and the court would benefit from such an appointment. Phillips, 437 F.3d. at 794. This Court previously concluded that Plaintiff demonstrated he could adequately present his claims to the Court and neither the factual nor legal issues in this case are unduly complex. (Doc. No. 10). Upon review of the record thus far and the relevant factors, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is still unnecessary at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED without prejudice. (Doc. Nos. 21 & 25.)

AUDREY G. Fl dsiG C \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 29th day of January, 2021.

_2-

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

HERMAN M. JERROD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:19-cv-03131-AGF ) ZACHARY PHILLIPS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (Doc. No. 21), and Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 25). There is no constitutional right for a pro se plaintiff to have counsel appointed in a civil case, although the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when necessary. Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 909 (8th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d. 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). Among the factors a court should consider in making this determination are the factual and legal complexity of the case, the ability of the plaintiff to present the facts and his claims, and the degree to which the plaintiff and the court would benefit from such an appointment. Phillips, 437 F.3d. at 794. This Court previously concluded that Plaintiff demonstrated he could adequately present his claims to the Court and neither the factual nor legal issues in this case are unduly complex. (Doc. No. 10). Upon review of the record thus far and the relevant factors, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is still unnecessary at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED without prejudice. (Doc. Nos. 21 & 25.)

AUDREY G. Fl dsiG C \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 29th day of January, 2021.

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jerrod v. Phillips, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerrod-v-phillips-moed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack