Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Vincent J. Scott v. Chief of Police and Four Other Unnamed Breckenridge Hills, Missouri, Policemen

Vincent J. Scott v. Chief of Police & Four Other Unnamed Breckenridge Hills, Mo., Policemen, 492 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1974)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-03-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal of an order of Judge Meredith denying appellant’s request for appointment of counsel to assist appellant in the prosecution of a civil rights suit. Appellant is presently incarcerated in the Federal Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. Before this Court may reach the merits of the appeal and review the question of whether the denial of appointment of counsel was an abuse of discretion by Judge Meredith, this Court must find the order of denial was a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Peterson v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Vincent J. Scott v. Chief of Police and Four Other Unnamed Breckenridge Hills, Missouri, Policemen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
SCOTT v. CHIEF OF POLICE,492 F.2d 1310(8th Cir. 1974)
VINCENT J. SCOTT, APPELLANT, v. CHIEF OF POLICE AND FOUR OTHER UNNAMED
BRECKENRIDGE HILLS, MISSOURI, POLICEMEN, APPELLEES.
No. 73-1825.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted February 15, 1974.
Decided March 5, 1974.
Vincent J. Scott, pro se.

David O. Danis, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees but did not file brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Before HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and DENNEY, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM.
[1] This is an appeal of an order of Judge Meredith denying appellant's request for appointment of counsel to assist appellant in the prosecution of a civil rights suit. Appellant is presently incarcerated in the Federal Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas.

[2] Before this Court may reach the merits of the appeal and review the question of whether the denial of appointment of counsel was an abuse of discretion by Judge Meredith, this Court must find the order of denial was a final order within the meaning of28 U.S.C. § 1291. Peterson v. Nadler,452 F.2d 754(8th Cir. 1971). ThePetersonrule requires that the order appealed from will result in irreparable harm to appellant.

[3] In this case, the record is silent as to the need of appellant for counsel and the irreparable effects, if any, that will flow from the denial of appointment of counsel. The Court will therefore remand the case to Judge Meredith for the limited purpose of expanding the record in that regard, after which this Court will again entertain the appeal.Page 1361
  1. Honorable ROBERT V. DENNEY, District Judge, District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. ↩