Stephen Francis Daniels v. Postmaster General, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-01632
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

STEPHEN FRANCIS DANIELS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-01632-HEA ) POSTMASTER GENERAL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Stephen Francis Daniels’s employment discrimination complaint and motion to appoint counsel. Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff has not included a copy of the charge of discrimination that he filed with the EEOC and has neither paid the $405 filing fee or filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs. If Plaintiff seeks to continue this suit, he shall file: (1) the $405 filing fee or a complete application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, and (2) a copy of the charge of discrimination he filed with the EEOC. As to Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, in civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). 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 (8th 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 Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th 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 complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s form application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees and costs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall either pay the $405 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees and costs by November 26, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Plaintiff shall submit a copy of his charge of discrimination that he filed with the EEOC by November 26, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Doc. [2] If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. Dated this 5" day of November, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE