# Avant-Elliott v. St. Louis Public Schools Board of Education

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · February 21, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10238290

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** February 21, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10238290

## Opinion text

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MIRANDA AVANT-ELLIOTT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:23-CV-00196 NCC
)
ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS )
BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Miranda Avant-Elliott moves for appointment of counsel in this employment
discrimination action. After considering the motion and the pleadings, the motion is denied without
prejudice to refiling at a later time.
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 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.
It appears that plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations in her complaint for
employment discrimination. However, she has demonstrated, at this point, that she can adequately
present her claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case
are complex. Thus, the Court will decline to appoint counsel at this juncture. Nonetheless, the
Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No.

3] is DENIED at this time.
Dated this 21st day of February, 2023.

/s/ Noelle C. Collins
NOELLE C. COLLINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10238290. Public record. Not legal advice.