McAfee v. Stange

E.D. Missouri

McAfee v. Stange

DecidedJune 22, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-00090

StatusUnknown

This text of McAfee v. Stange (McAfee v. Stange) 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

McAfee v. Stange, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL McAFEE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 1:21-CV-0090 ACL ) BILL STANGE, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel. After considering the motion and the pleadings, the motion is denied without prejudice to refiling at a later time. 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 petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the petitioner will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the petitioner’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. Petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint. However, he has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex. The Court will therefore deny petitioner’s motion for counsel at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF #4] is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this _22nd day of June, 2021.

(Unt, City Leone) ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_2-

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL McAFEE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 1:21-CV-0090 ACL ) BILL STANGE, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel. After considering the motion and the pleadings, the motion is denied without prejudice to refiling at a later time. 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 petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the petitioner will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the petitioner’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. Petitioner has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint. However, he has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex. The Court will therefore deny petitioner’s motion for counsel at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF #4] is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this _22nd day of June, 2021.

(Unt, City Leone) ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McAfee v. Stange, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcafee-v-stange-moed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack