Timothy Nelson v. Dorn Shuffman Diane McFarland Karen Adams Alan Blake Martha Bellew-Smith Linda Meade
This text of 476 F.3d 635 (Timothy Nelson v. Dorn Shuffman Diane McFarland Karen Adams Alan Blake Martha Bellew-Smith Linda Meade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Timothy Nelson appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. The district court’s denial of counsel is affirmed at this time, but the denial is without prejudice to Timothy Nelson’s right to renew his request for counsel as the case progresses. In any future orders which may deny requests for counsel, the district court is directed to state in more detail its reasons for doing so. See Slaughter v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 589 (8th Cir.1984) (discussing the need for the record to reveal “whether the district court exercised a reasoned and well-informed discretion, so as to permit ... review for abuse of discretion”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
476 F.3d 635, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 1620, 2007 WL 174395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-nelson-v-dorn-shuffman-diane-mcfarland-karen-adams-alan-blake-ca8-2007.