WILMA M. PENNINGTON-THURMAN, Plaintiff, v. AT T, Defendant.

No. 4:09CV154 FRB.United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
May 21, 2009

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FREDERICK BUCKLES, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #4].

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. Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990);Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986).

After considering these factors, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues involved in the instant case are not so complicated that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this time.

Page 2

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED without prejudice.