Daniels v. Postmaster General et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
STEPHEN FRANCIS DANIELS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-cv-01632-HEA
)
POSTMASTER GENERAL, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Stephen Francis Daniels’s
employment discrimination complaint and motion to appoint counsel. Upon review,
the Court finds Plaintiff has not included a copy of the charge of discrimination that
he filed with the EEOC and has neither paid the $405 filing fee or filed an application
to proceed without prepaying fees and costs. If Plaintiff seeks to continue this suit,
he shall file: (1) the $405 filing fee or a complete application to proceed in district
court without prepaying fees or costs, and (2) a copy of the charge of discrimination
he filed with the EEOC.
As to Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, in civil cases, a pro se litigant does
not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721
F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil
case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous
Case: 4:25-cv-01632-HEA Doc. #: 3 Filed: 11/05/25 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the
court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845,
850 (8th Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent
litigant, a court considers relevant factors such as the complexity of the case, the
ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting
testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. 	Phillips
v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel
is not warranted at this time. 	Plaintiff has demonstrated, at this point, that he can
adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the
legal issues in this case appear to be complex. 	The Court will entertain future
motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the
Court’s form application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees and
costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall either pay the $405 filing
fee or submit an application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees
and costs by November 26, 2025.
Case: 4:25-cv-01632-HEA Doc. #: 3 Filed: 11/05/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Plaintiff shall submit a copy of his charge
of discrimination that he filed with the EEOC by November 26, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Doc. [2]
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this
action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
Dated this 5 th day of November, 2025.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01632-HEA Doc. #: 3 Filed: 11/05/25 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>