Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05132/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05132-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

STEPHEN JAMES ENGLEMAN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5132

 

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON;

DEPUTY MURRAY; and 

KEITH SMITH, Chief of Police,

Gentry Police Department DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Before the undersigned for decision are the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

(Doc. 48) and the motion to compel filed by separate defendant Keith Smith (Doc. 49).

In his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff merely states that he misunderstood

what the defendants’ motions forsummary judgment meant. He states he does not want the case

to be dismissed and asks for the appointment of counsel. 

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."

Case 5:05-cv-05132-JLH-JRM Document 52 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

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

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).

The court has reviewed the file. The plaintiff has been able to file a variety of documents

with the court asking for various forms of relief and filed objections to the report and

recommendation issued by the undersigned. The documents filed by plaintiff have been

understood by the court. The court will assist the plaintiff in responding to the summary

judgment motions by preparing a questionnaire. In addition to responding to specific questions

from the court, plaintiff may in responding to the questionnaire provide the court any other

information he believes the court should consider in ruling on the motions. From what is

currently before the court, it appears the plaintiff will be able to adequately investigate and

present his case. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied (Doc. 48).

On February 9, 2006, the separate defendant Keith Smith filed a motion to compel (Doc.

49). In the motion, Smith indicates he propounded interrogatories and requeststo production to

the plaintiff on November 2, 2006. On February 1, 2007, Smith states he received a letter

regarding the discovery responses from the plaintiff. The letter states: “As I am in jail at the

Case 5:05-cv-05132-JLH-JRM Document 52 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

time I cannot answer your interrogatory. And I would not give you access to any of the

information anyway. I’m not the one on trial here.” 

The discovery rules are to be given a broad, liberal interpretation. See e.g., Edgar v.

Finley, 312 F.2d 533 (8th Cir. 1963). Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant

to the claim or defense of any party." 

Plaintiff cannot object to discovery merely because he does not believe he is on “trial.”

Once having filed a lawsuit, the rules of discovery allow both sides to submit interrogatories and

request for production of documents to the opposing parties. If plaintiff believes a particular

discovery request is objectionable, he must state very specifically why he objects to providing

the information sought in that request. Plaintiff’s broad objection to all discovery in general is

clearly insufficient. 

Accordingly, the motion to compel (Doc. 49) is granted. Plaintiff is directed to provide

defendant Smith with responses to the discovery requests by 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of February 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05132-JLH-JRM Document 52 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>