Opinion
No. 4:20-cv-01242-AGF
05-28-2021
MICHAEL CHARLES NATOLI, Plaintiff, v. DEAN KELLY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Michael Charles Natoli for the appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 32). 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 (8 Cir. 2013). See also Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8 Cir. 1998) (stating that "[a] pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case"). 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 (8 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 Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8 Cir. 2006).
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. As such, the Court is not convinced that plaintiff as well as the Court would benefit from the assistance of counsel. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses, if appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 32) is DENIED at this time.
Dated this 28th day of May 2021.
/s/_________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE