Decoteau v. Houston

4:14-cv-03165 | D. Neb. | Dec 30, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CHRISTOPHER L. DECOTEAU, ) 4:14CV3165 ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM ) AND ORDER ROBERT HOUSTON, MICHAEL ) KENNEY, RANDY KOHL, DIANE ) SABAKA RHINE, CHRISTINA ) FERGUSON, CHARLES COREN, ) and KHRYSTYNA DORITY, )

) Defendants. ) This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel and extension of time (Filing Nos. 44 and 47). Upon careful consideration, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied without

prejudice to reassertion. The court cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v. Scott , 94 F.3d 444" date_filed="1996-10-03" court="8th Cir." case_name="Ricky Davis v. Helen Scott Tom Villmer James Purkett Ian Wallace">94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. The trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel[.]” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). No such benefit is apparent here at this time.

2. Plaintiff’s unopposed request for a 120-day extension of time is granted. The dates set forth in the progression order entered on October 8, 2015, are extended by 120 days. The pretrial conference set for April 14, 2016, is cancelled. The final pretrial conference will be held before Magistrate Judge Zwart on August 11, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

DATED this 30th day of December, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/ John M. Gerrard United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2