Ramos v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JONATHAN F. RAMOS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
8:24CV455
ORDER
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).
8:24-cv-00455-RFR-JMD Doc # 21 Filed: 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
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
8:24-cv-00455-RFR-JMD Doc # 21 Filed: 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>