IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TRAVIS COX,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BOARD OF PAROLE, OFFICE OF 

PAROLE SUPERVISION, OFFICE OF 

PAROLE ADMINISTRATION, NEBRASKA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL 

SERVICES (NDCS), DANIELLE SANDERS, 

HEATHER TODD-ROBERSON, TOM 

VERPLANK, ROSALYN COTTON, LAYNE 

GISSLER, BOB TWISS, HABIB OLOMI, 

MARK LANGAN, DOUGLAS COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and 

MIKE MYERS,

Defendants.

8:23CV202

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint, Filing No. 31, Motion for Reconsideration or for Continuance, Filing No. 32, 

Motion to Appoint Counsel, Filing No. 33, Motion for Reconsideration of TRO and 

Preliminary Injunction, Filing No. 35, and Motion for Continuance, Filing No. 38.

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his Complaint specifically 

stating his proposed amendments and attached an unsigned copy of the proposed 

amended complaint as required by NECivR 15.1(a). A district court should freely give 

leave to amend a complaint when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Upon 

consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, Filing No. 31, 

is granted, with the understanding that the Amended Complaint, when filed, will 

8:23-cv-00202-JFB-PRSE Doc # 39 Filed: 12/04/23 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 126
supersede, rather than supplement, the original Complaint, Filing No. 1. Plaintiff shall 

have 30 days from the date of this order to file the Amended Complaint. NECivR 

15.1(c) (“The granting of the motion for leave to amend does not constitute filing the 

amended pleading. If granted leave to amend, the party must then file the amended 

pleading.”).

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR FOR CONTINUANCE

In his Motion for Reconsideration or for Continuance filed on August 16, 2023, 

Plaintiff asks the Court “to reconsider the facts of 8:23cv202 under the assumption that 

the defense will ask for the case to be dismissed or file for waiver of no-reply” and to 

grant Plaintiff “the right to amend my complaint to the guidelines that need to be 

addressed and/or a continuance on the off chance that, for the third time, Douglas 

County Department of Corrections has withheld my mail till past my deadline.” Filing 

No. 32 at 1. No defendant has yet been served or had to answer in this case, and the 

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, as discussed above. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or for Continuance, Filing No. 32, is 

denied as moot.

III. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff has renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. Filing No. 33. 

The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous request for the appointment of counsel on July 7, 

2023. Filing No. 26. As the Court explained, “[t]here is no constitutional or statutory 

right to appointed counsel in civil cases.” Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 

794 (8th Cir. 2006). A district court “may request an attorney to represent” an indigent 

civil litigant, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it has a “good deal of discretion” in deciding 

8:23-cv-00202-JFB-PRSE Doc # 39 Filed: 12/04/23 Page 2 of 5 - Page ID # 127
whether to do so, Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 909 (8th Cir. 2011). 

“Relevant criteria for determining whether counsel should be requested include the 

factual and legal complexity of the case, the plaintiff’s ability to investigate the facts and 

to present the claims, and the presence or absence of conflicting testimony.” Recca v. 

Omaha Police Dep’t, 859 F. App’x 3, 4 (8th Cir. 2021) (citing Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 

444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996)).

The procedural posture of this case has not changed significantly since the Court 

last considered Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. This case is still in its 

early stages, and the Court has yet to conduct an initial review of Plaintiff’s claims as 

required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to 

present his claims, at least through this initial stage of the litigation. Plaintiff’s pro se 

filings are generally well-written, and he has complied with the Court’s directives. As a 

prisoner, Plaintiff understandably faces challenges representing himself, but “most 

indigent prisoners will face similar challenges.” See Recca, 859 F. App’x at 5 (citing 

Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018)). Having considered the factors 

outlined above, the request for the appointment of counsel will be denied without 

prejudice to reassertion. Of course, the Court will “continue to be alert to the possibility 

that, because of procedural complexities or other reasons, later developments in the 

case may show either that counsel should be appointed, or that strict procedural 

requirements should, in fairness, be relaxed to some degree.” Williams v. Carter, 10 

F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 1993).

8:23-cv-00202-JFB-PRSE Doc # 39 Filed: 12/04/23 Page 3 of 5 - Page ID # 128
IV. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to “grant a motion to 

reconsider the motion to grant a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary 

Injunction” and attached copies of his previously filed motion for a TRO and a 

preliminary injunction, Filing No. 11, and the Declaration in support, Filing No. 10. Filing 

No. 35. Plaintiff also filed an affidavit in support of his motion for reconsideration in 

which he cryptically states that he firmly believes that “NDCS intends, as it did in 2022, 

to send the plaintiff directly into harms [sic] way and get him killed. In 2022 NDCS sent 

the plaintiff to live with the perpetrator of a hate crime.” Filing No. 36. The Court denied 

Plaintiff’s previous motion for such relief on July 7, 2023, because “Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated that he faces a threat of irreparable harm. Rather, Plaintiff’s filings focus 

on past harms and any suggested threat of harm is speculative.” Filing No. 26 at 5–6. 

For the reasons stated in the Court’s prior order, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of 

TRO and Preliminary Injunction, Filing No. 35, is denied.

V. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Finally, on September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Continuance “for the 

purpose of consolidating efforts and papers following a change of address.” Filing No. 

38. In conjunction with the Court’s granting on Plaintiff’s motion to amend his 

Complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance. Plaintiff shall have 30 

days from the date of this order to file his Amended Complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, Filing No. 31, 

and Motion for Continuance, Filing No. 38, is granted, with the understanding that the 

8:23-cv-00202-JFB-PRSE Doc # 39 Filed: 12/04/23 Page 4 of 5 - Page ID # 129
Amended Complaint, when filed, will supersede, rather than supplement, the original 

Complaint. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file his Amended 

Complaint. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline 

using the following text: January 3, 2024: deadline to file amended complaint.

3. Plaintiff is advised that, following the filing of his Amended Complaint, the 

next step in Plaintiff’s case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of Plaintiff’s 

claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2). The Court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or for Continuance, Filing No. 32, 

and Motion for Reconsideration of TRO and Preliminary Injunction, Filing No. 35, are 

denied for the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Filing No. 33, is denied without 

prejudice to reassertion.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00202-JFB-PRSE Doc # 39 Filed: 12/04/23 Page 5 of 5 - Page ID # 130