The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
KAIVEN LEMAR WESLEY PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL NO. 1:22-cv-01026-SOH
TIFFANY KINLEY; NURSE STEPHANIE HOLMES;
KEANE LIPPS; DR. JOSEPH DELUCA; and
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR CAMERON OWENS DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This case was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Susan O. Hickey for
appointment of trial counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.1. (ECF
No. 169).
While a civil litigant has no constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed attorney,
the Court may make such an appointment at its discretion when the circumstances warrant.
Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985). To determine whether to appoint
counsel, the Court considers several factors, including whether: (1) Plaintiff has presented non-
frivolous allegations supporting his prayer for relief; (2) Plaintiff will substantially benefit from
the appointment of counsel; (3) there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related
to Plaintiff's allegations; and (4) 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 v. Redfield Lithograph
Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir. 1984). Courts must exercise “reasoned and well-
informed discretion” and should “seriously consider” appointing counsel where an indigent
plaintiff states a colorable claim, and the nature of the case is such that he and the Court would
benefit from assistance of counsel. Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir.1986).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this matter and is of the opinion that the
appointment of counsel to represent Plaintiff would best serve the interests of justice. Plaintiff
has presented a non-frivolous claim; there is a need to further investigate and present the facts
related to Plaintiff's allegations; and both Plaintiff and this Court will benefit from the
appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds counsel to represent Plaintiff at trial is
warranted.
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Cara D. Butler of Mitchell,
Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C., at 425 W. Capitol Ave., Ste. 1800, Little Rock,
AR 72201, is hereby appointed to represent Plaintiff Kaiven Lemar Wesley for trial in this
matter.1
0F
Counsel is reminded that no federal funds are available to pay attorney’s fees to counsel
appointed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915; however, in the event Plaintiff is a prevailing
party at trial, counsel may seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
and in the event of settlement, attorney’s fees should be negotiated as part of the settlement
agreement. Pursuant to Rule 83.6 of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of
Arkansas, the Court may pay reasonable out-of-pocket expenses where no funds are available
from other sources to cover those expenses. Counsel shall follow the guidance provided in
Exhibit A to Local Rule 83.6 which provides, inter alia, that if counsel intends to seek
reimbursement from the fund for an amount exceeding $500, counsel must obtain prior written
1 Should Ms. Butler find it necessary to add or substitute other counsel from the Mitchell Williams
Law Firm, said lawyers may enter an appearance. The Court appreciates the willingness of
Mitchell Williams Law Firm to accept pro bono representation of a member of this community
unable to afford counsel.
approval of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of October 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE