Opinion
4:24-cv-00397-BSM-ERE
08-27-2024
MARK DANIEL CROWLEY ADC #133058 PLAINTIFF v. LEMONS, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Mark Daniel Crowley has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Doc. 34.
A Pro se litigant in a civil case does not have a statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel. Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018); Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). However, the Court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel if the pro se prisoner has stated a non-frivolous claim and “the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson, 902 F.3d at 850 (quoting Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986)). In making this determination, the Court must weigh and consider the following factors: (1) the factual and legal complexity of the case; (2) the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts; (3) the existence of conflicting testimony; and (4) the plaintiff's ability to present his claims. Id.; Phillips, 437 F.3d at 794.
The decision to appoint counsel is based on the circumstances of each case.
This case is neither factually nor legally complex. And Mr. Crowley has demonstrated that he can investigate, present and pursue his case. It is understandable that Mr. Crowley would prefer to be assisted by court-appointed counsel, but the Court lacks resources to appoint counsel in all prisoner cases. After considering all relevant factors, the Court declines to appoint counsel at this point in the case.
As the case proceeds, the Court will reconsider, on its own, whether counsel should be appointed to assist Mr. Crowley. And if the case is scheduled for trial, the Court will likely appoint counsel to assist Mr. Crowley.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Mr. Crowley's motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 34) is DENIED, without prejudice.