Kurz v. United States

E.D. Missouri

Kurz v. United States

DecidedOctober 15, 2019

Docket4:19-cv-00310

StatusUnknown

This text of Kurz v. United States (Kurz v. United States) 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

Kurz v. United States, (E.D. Mo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN M. KURZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:19-CV-310 CAS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, as well as his motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. After review of plaintiff’s financial information, the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of standby counsel on appeal, however, will be denied. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s allegations; and (4) whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005. The Court dismissed the present action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on August 13, 2019. Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel on appeal, and the Court does not believe he will be able to present meritorious allegations supporting his prayer for relief. As such, plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel on appeal will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. [Doc. 51] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED. [Doc. 50]

CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this_ 15th day of October, 2019.

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

JOHN M. KURZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:19-CV-310 CAS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, as well as his motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. After review of plaintiff’s financial information, the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of standby counsel on appeal, however, will be denied. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s allegations; and (4) whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005. The Court dismissed the present action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on August 13, 2019. Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel on appeal, and the Court does not believe he will be able to present meritorious allegations supporting his prayer for relief. As such, plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel on appeal will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. [Doc. 51] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED. [Doc. 50]

CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this_ 15th day of October, 2019.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kurz v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurz-v-united-states-moed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack