Chambers v. Thompson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
VINCEL KING CHAMBERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00530-MTS
)
LIEUTENANT THOMPSON, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of pro se Plaintiff Vincel King Chambers’s
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, Doc. [2],
and his Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. [3]. With respect to the former, Plaintiff has
not submitted a certified copy of his trust fund account statement for the six-month period
immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint, which is required of him when seeking
in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). For this reason, the Court will
deny his Application without prejudice. See Yates v. Baldwin, 633 F.3d 669, 672 (8th Cir.
2011) (per curiam) (finding no abuse of discretion for denial where plaintiff “did not submit
a certified copy of an inmate trust fund account statement along with his motion”). The
Court will require Plaintiff to file a new application supported by a certified copy of his
account statement, or prepay the $405 filing fee in full, no later than Thursday, February
19, 2026. The Court warns Plaintiff that his statements on the application are made under
Case: 4:25-cv-00530-MTS Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
penalty of perjury.* If Plaintiff chooses to file another application, Plaintiff must do so
carefully and truthfully answer each question in its entirety. Failure to abide by any of
the above requirements will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.
In addition, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel at this time.
In this civil matter, Plaintiff “has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel
appointed” for him. Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). When
determining whether to appoint counsel, courts consider several factors such as “the
complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent litigant to investigate the facts, the
existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the indigent to present his claim.”
Id. Here, there is no complexity because Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims arise out of events he
witnessed and experienced. Further, a review of Plaintiff’s Complaint shows that he is
able to adequately present his claims. Therefore, at this early juncture, Plaintiff has “not
established that appointed counsel is appropriate at this stage in this case.” Yelton v.
Warren, 4:25-cv-01071-MTS, 2025 WL 2322683, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2025).
Should this case proceed, the Court will entertain future motions to appoint counsel, if
appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Vincel King Chambers’s Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is DENIED without
prejudice.
* See 28 U.S.C. § 1621 (punishing perjury with a fine and imprisonment of up to five years).
Case: 4:25-cv-00530-MTS Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than Thursday, February 19, 2026,
Plaintiff Vincel King Chambers shall prepay the filing fee in full or carefully complete and
file a new application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs along with
a certified copy of his inmate account statement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc.
[3], is DENIED without prejudice.
Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this action
without prejudice.
Dated this 22nd day of January 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-00530-MTS Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>