Pilak v. Uber Technologies

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION AYKUT PILAK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00456-SEP ) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are self-represented Plaintiff Aykut Pilak’s Application to Proceed in the District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], and Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. [3]. Because Plaintiff has since paid the filing fee, the application is denied as moot. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for counsel is denied. A litigant has “neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006)). A district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if it 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.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986)). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, a court considers such factors as “the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the indigent person to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments.” Id. (quoting Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794). On review of the factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff has so far shown that he can adequately present his claims to the Court, and neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. Because the Court recognizes that circumstances may change, the motion is denied without prejudice, meaning that the Court will consider future motions, if appropriate, as the case progresses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in the District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. [3], is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 20th day of June, 2025.

,f0, (9 Kk LG é e. tu Uk. > SARAHE.PITLYK“” > UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE