Webb v. Streeter, 4:21-cv-03058

Plaintiff Yohan Webb (pro se) filed an eighth motion to appoint counsel in a civil suit alleging he was forcibly restrained and injected with psychotropic medication at the Lincoln Regional Center.
Plaintiff sought counsel for the final pretrial conference scheduled for August 16, 2022, and also requested appointment as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (claiming antisocial personality disorder).
The court noted there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases; appointment is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
The court found the case neither legally nor factually complex and concluded Webb has demonstrated the ability to investigate facts, research, and present claims through extensive filings.
The final pretrial conference will not involve testimony, and defense counsel is responsible for drafting the pretrial order and incorporating any agreed changes.
The court denied Webb’s renewed motion to appoint counsel without prejudice and explained that federal courts are not public entities subject to Title II of the ADA and are not covered programs under the Rehabilitation Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)	Webb says counsel is needed for the final pretrial conference and to represent him effectively.	Appointment unnecessary because the case is not complex and Webb can litigate on his own.	Denied without prejudice; court exercised discretion, finding case not complex and Webb capable of presenting claims.
Whether ADA or Rehabilitation Act requires appointment of counsel	Webb seeks counsel as an ADA accommodation due to his diagnosed disorder.	Federal courts are not ‘‘public entities’’ under Title II and are not covered ‘‘programs or activities’’ under the Rehabilitation Act; neither statute requires appointment of counsel.	Denied; court held ADA/RA do not obligate federal courts to provide counsel and the statutes do not apply to federal courts in this manner.

Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2013) (no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases)
Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court has discretion to request counsel under § 1915(e)(1))
Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 1996) (factors for appointing counsel include complexity, plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present claims, and conflicting testimony)
Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (similar criteria guide decision to appoint counsel)
In re Sheridan, 362 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2004) (federal courts are not ‘‘programs or activities’’ covered by the Rehabilitation Act)