Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02143/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02143-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

THOMAS LEE STONE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2143

 

SHERIFF MIKE ALLEN; 

and CHARLES WALL DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On November 27, 2006, defendants filed a motion to compel answers to discovery requests

(Doc. 16). Defendants state they propounded interrogatories and requests for production of

documents to the plaintiff on October 13, 2006. To date, defendants state they have not received

plaintiff’s responses or any communication from the plaintiff regarding his responses.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff had thirty (30) days to respond to

the discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) & 34(b). On November 29, 2006, the plaintiff

filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 18). In his motion for appointment of counsel,

plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to the discovery requests. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time is granted. Plaintiff is given until 5:00 p.m. on December 18, 2006, to

provide the defendants with the discovery responses.

On November 27, 2006, the defendants also filed a motion for an extension of time to file

their court-ordered summary judgment motion (Doc. 17). In the motion, defendants indicate they

need the discovery responses from the plaintiff before they can prepare and file the summary

judgment motion. The motion for an extension of time is granted. 

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 19 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The defendants are given until January 18, 2007, to file theirsummary judgment motion.

Once the summary judgment motion is filed, the court will prepare a questionnaire to assist the

plaintiff in responding to the motion. For this reason, plaintiff is directed not to respond to the

motion for summary judgment until so ordered by the court.

The plaintiff proceeds in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On November 29,

2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 18). In Mallard v. United

States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 104 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1989), the Supreme

Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize a federal court to require an unwilling

attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case. Section 1915(e)(1) provides: "the court

may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel."

"Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed

counsel." Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995)(citation

omitted). "Once indigent pro se litigants meet their burden of showing that their complaints are

not frivolous . . . counsel should be [requested] if the district court determines it is necessary."

Id. 

The standard used in determining the necessity of requesting counsel to represent the

litigant is whether both the litigant and the court would benefit from the assistance of counsel.

Id. "'Factors bearing on this determination include: the factual complexity of the issues; the

ability of an indigent to investigate the facts; the existence of conflicting testimony; the ability

of an indigent to present his claim; and the complexity of the legal issues.'" Id. (quoting,

Nachtigall v. Class, 48 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 1995)). See also Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 19 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

538, 547 (8th Cir. 1998); Bumgarner v. Malin, 97 F.3d 1456 (8th Cir. 1996); Johnson v.

Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986).

In his motion, plaintiff states he has an eighth grade education. Due to the complex

nature of the case and the involved discovery propounded by defendants, plaintiff asks that

counsel be appointed to assist him.

The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Thus far, plaintiff has been able to

adequately set forth his claims. The documents filed by plaintiff have been understood by the

court. The discovery requests call for information within the knowledge of the plaintiff. When

the defendants file their summary judgment motion, the court will assist the plaintiff in

responding to the motion by preparing a questionnaire. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02143-JLH Document 19 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>