White v. LaBelle et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DION WHITE, 	1:22-CV-O1007-CBK
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOANN LABELLE, Nurse, JAMES
FOSTER, Jail Administrator, and ROBERTS
COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Codington County Jail in Watertown, South
Dakota, filed a pro se complaint contending that defendants LaBelle and Roberts County
Jail denied giving him his prescribed medication, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
He filed another complaint wherein he added James Foster as an additional defendant.
The filing was construed as a motion to add party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and the
motion was granted.
Defendant Roberts County Jail filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. In response, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendant Roberts County Jail.
The motions should be granted.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint. He has failed to comply with
D.S.D. LR 15.1. The motion should be denied.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. "Pro se litigants have
neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases."
Patterson v. Kelley. 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). The district courts are authorized,
under certain circumstances, to appoint counsel to indigent pro se litigants who state a
non-frivolous claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit has held:
Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 25 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

"[A]n indigent prose prison litigant who has met his burden of
showing his complaint not to be frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d) should be appointed counsel where necessary." Reynolds
v. Foree, 771 F .2d 1179, 1181 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam ). The
district court should determine whether the nature of the litigation is
such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the
assistance of counsel. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728
F.2d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir.1984).
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986).
Although factual complexity is certainly a relevant factor for a
district court to consider in determining an indigent litigant's need
for appointment of counsel, it is not the only factor. 	We believe that
in addition to factual complexity, the district court should also
consider the ability of an indigent to investigate the facts, the
existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of an indigent to
present his claim, and the complexity of the legal issues. These
factors are "by no means an exclusive checklist," and the weight to
be given any one factor will vary with the case.
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d at 1322-23 (internal citations omitted).
The case is not factually complex. Discovery is also not complex in this case.
Appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time.
Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs motion, Doc. 18, and defendant's motion, Doc. 14, to dismiss
defendant Roberts County Jail are granted.
2. Plaintiffs motion, Doc. 20, to amend the complaint is denied.
3. Plaintiffs m~, Doc. 19, to appoint counsel is denied.
Dated this e 	day of December, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
~ 	th~~,,_~~CHARLES B. KORN
United States District Judge
2
Case 1:22-cv-01007-CBK Document 25 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>