Case Information
*1 8:24-cv-00455-RFR-JMD Doc # 21 Filed: 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 74
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JONATHAN F. RAMOS, Plaintiff, 8:24CV455 vs. ORDER CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Jonathan F. Ramos filed a motion for court-appointed counsel. Filing No. 20. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis . Filing No. 6. A civil litigant has no constitutional or statutory right to a court-appointed attorney. The Court may, however, make such an appointment at its discretion. Davis v. Scott , 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996). A trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both the pro se party and the Court will benefit from the appointment of counsel, taking into account the factual and legal complexity of the case, the presence or absence of conflicting testimony, and the pro se party’s ability to investigate the facts and present or defend the claims. Id. The Court may also consider whether and to what extent the unrepresented party made any effort to retain counsel before seeking court-appointed counsel. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing , 728 F.2d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir. 1984).
1 *2 8:24-cv-00455-RFR-JMD Doc # 21 Filed: 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 75 Considering all these factors, the Court finds appointment of counsel is not warranted under the facts presented. The claims and defenses at issue are not factually or legally complex and there is no sufficient showing of efforts made to locate counsel without Court assistance. See Davis , 94 F.3d at 447.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel, Filing No. 20,
is denied without prejudice. Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca United States Magistrate Judge
2