Walker v. Keen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY A. WALKER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-CV-1239-ZMB
)
DANIEL KEEN, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on self-represented Petitioner Timothy A. Walker’s motions to
proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel. Docs. 2, 3, 5. For the following reasons, the
Court grants Walker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denies his request for counsel.
The Court first considers Walker’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis.1 Doc. 3.
A prisoner may seek “to bring a civil action . . . without prepayment of fees or security thereof.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). To proceed in forma pauperis, the prisoner must file the required affidavit
as well as “submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for
the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding” the initiation of the civil action. Id. If
the Court determines that the prisoner is financially unable to pay the fees associated with the action,
it may grant the prisoner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Walker has provided the requisite documentation. He submitted a completed affidavit, see
Doc. 3 at 1–3, as well as the institutional equivalent of the trust fund account statement, id. at 3.
The documentation indicates that he has a negative account balance of $1,796.06. Id. Therefore,
Walker has demonstrated he is financially unable to pay and may proceed in forma pauperis.
1 Walker’s first motion to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete. See Doc. 2. Because his second motion was
complete and meritorious, the Court denies as moot Walker’s first motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Case: 4:25-cv-01239-ZMB Doc. #: 6 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Walker also moves for the appointment of counsel. Doc. 5. In civil cases, a self-represented
litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721
F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013); see also Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998).
Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if “convinced that an indigent plaintiff
has stated a non-frivolous 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 self-represented litigant
to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the 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. Walker has demonstrated 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. That said,
the Court may entertain a future request for counsel if circumstances change as the case progresses.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Walker’s [3] second motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, DENIES as moot Walker’s [2] first motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and DENIES
without prejudice Walker’s [5] motion to appoint counsel.
So ordered this 28th day of October 2025.
ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01239-ZMB Doc. #: 6 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>