# Brown v. Briescher

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · August 15, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239125

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** August 15, 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/10239125

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ANGELA M. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:23-CV-00520 RLW
)
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This employment discrimination matter is before the Court on self-represented plaintiff
Angela M. Brown’s motion to appoint counsel. For the following reasons, the motion will be
denied without prejudice.
In civil cases, a self-represented litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to
appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013); see also Stevens v. Redwing,
146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). 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 (8th 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 (8th Cir. 2006).
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not
warranted. Plaintiff 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 appear to be complex.
The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 3]

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of August, 2023.

-2-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239125. Public record. Not legal advice.