Johnson v. Carter

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

JUSTIN A. W. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF #44511

v. 3:23CV00225-DPM-JTK

BJ CARTER, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Justin A. W. Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED for the reasons set out below. While a pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case, Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998), the Court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for non-frivolous claims where “the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986). In evaluating the plaintiff’s request in Johnson, the Court considered four factors: (1) the factual and legal complexity of the case; (2) the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts; (3) the presence or absence of conflicting testimony; and (4) the plaintiff's ability to present his claims. Id. at 1322-23. In his Motion to Appoint Counsel, Plaintiff “contest[s] the expect[ation] [that he] be familiar with & follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff takes particular issue with that expectation because he claims, among other things, insufficient access to the law library and “no reasonable accommodation for disabilities.” (Id.). Plaintiff’s claims have not yet been screened pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The scope and complexity of any claims that may proceed are not yet clear. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion is premature and denied without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29" day of November, 2023.

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE