Pearson v. Gittemeier

E.D. Missouri

Pearson v. Gittemeier

DecidedFebruary 5, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-00041

StatusUnknown

This text of Pearson v. Gittemeier (Pearson v. Gittemeier) 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

Pearson v. Gittemeier, (E.D. Mo. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION JEREMY BRADLEY PEARSON, ) Plaintiff, V. No. 2:19-cv-00041-RL W FRANK GITTEMEIER, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Jeremy Bradley Pearson for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 20). In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward y. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8" 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 plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim...and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8 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 (8" Cir. 2006). After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff 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 appear to be

unduly complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 20) is DENIED at this time. Dated this F*,,, ot Fale 2 7 , 2020.

RONNIE L. WHITE 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 NORTHERN DIVISION JEREMY BRADLEY PEARSON, ) Plaintiff, V. No. 2:19-cv-00041-RL W FRANK GITTEMEIER, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Jeremy Bradley Pearson for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 20). In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward y. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8" 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 plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim...and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8 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 (8" Cir. 2006). After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff 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 appear to be

unduly complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 20) is DENIED at this time. Dated this F*,,, ot Fale 2 7 , 2020.

RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pearson v. Gittemeier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-gittemeier-moed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack