Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02163/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Virgil Breshears
Appellee
Gary Bush
Appellee
Gary Holloway
Appellee
David Sanders
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2163

___________

David Sanders, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Gary Holloway, Sheriff, Ray County; *

Virgil Breshears, Sgt., Ray County; * [UNPUBLISHED]

and Gary Bush, Sgt., Ray County, * 

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 10, 2004

Filed: April 23, 2004

___________

Before RILEY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Sanders (Sanders) appeals the district court’s denial2

 of his motions for

appointed counsel on claims he brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal, Sanders

Appellate Case: 02-2163 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2004 Entry ID: 1760124 
-2-

argues the district court abused its discretion by denying him appointed counsel

because his claims were factually and legally complex, he had no ability to adequately

investigate the facts of his case, and he was unable to cogently present his case in

court. We affirm.

On March 13, 2000, Sanders filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

the conditions of his confinement violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free of

cruel and unusual punishment. Sanders claims the conditions at the Ray County Jail

were unsanitary, he was denied adequate medical treatment, and that he was denied

access to legal materials and a law library. In a letter dated July 9, 2000, Sanders

wrote to the district court requesting counsel. The district court denied Sanders’

request, finding the record had not been sufficiently developed to determine if

appointed counsel was justified. Sanders wrote to the district court again on August

9, 2001, and requested appointed counsel for his jury trial. The district court denied

his motion, finding the motion was premature as no trial had yet been scheduled. On

December 22, 2001, Sanders wrote to the district court requesting the appointment

of counsel. The district court denied Sanders’ request following consideration of

Sanders’ motion and memorandum of law in support.

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

appointed counsel.” Edgington v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir.

1995). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request an attorney

to represent any person unable to afford counsel in a civil case. After an indigent pro

se litigant meets the burden of showing the complaint is not frivolous, counsel should

be appointed if the district court determines it is necessary. Edgington, 52 F.3d at

780. Factors bearing on the determination of whether appointed counsel is necessary

include: the factual complexity of the issues, the ability of the indigent person to

investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent

person to present the claims, and the complexity of the legal arguments. Id. We

Appellate Case: 02-2163 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2004 Entry ID: 1760124 
-3-

review a district court’s decision regarding the appointment of counsel in civil cases

under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. 

After carefully reviewing the record and considering the factors listed above,

we conclude Sanders adequately understood the nature of his claims, which were not

legally or factually complex, and he displayed at least a basic understanding of the

Rules of Civil Procedure so that he was able to present his claims. The district court,

therefore, did not abuse its discretion by denying Sanders’ requests for appointed

counsel. Furthermore, even if we were to conclude the district court abused its

discretion by failing to appoint counsel, there is an absence of evidence to support

Sanders’ claims and the outcome likely would have been the same. Consequently,

Sanders has not shown any prejudice resulting from lack of counsel. Nelson v.

Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir. 1984) (concluding the

defendant failed to show prejudice as counsel would not have altered the outcome).

 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-2163 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2004 Entry ID: 1760124