From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malady v. Corizon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Sep 13, 2013
No. 1:13CV80 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sep. 13, 2013)

Opinion

No. 1:13CV80 SNLJ

2013-09-13

JOHN TIMOTHY MALADY, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. The motion will be denied.

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 facts and legal issues involved are not so complicated that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this time.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 23] is DENIED.

___________

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Malady v. Corizon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Sep 13, 2013
No. 1:13CV80 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sep. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Malady v. Corizon

Case Details

Full title:JOHN TIMOTHY MALADY, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 13, 2013

Citations

No. 1:13CV80 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sep. 13, 2013)