Wilson v. Lorts

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY RUSSELL WILSON, II , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:19CV1196 HEA ) STEVE LORTS, et. al, ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 26]. The motion will be denied, without prejudice. 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 plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’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. After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. This case is neither factually nor legally complex. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 26], is denied without prejudice. Dated this 26" day of February, 2020.

tele UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE