CHARLES SHAW, District Judge
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel.
The appointment of counsel for an indigent plaintiff in a Title VII case lies within the discretion of the Court. Once the plaintiff alleges a prima facie claim, the Court must determine the plaintiff's need for counsel to effectively litigate his claim. In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 1986). The standard for appointment of counsel in a civil case is whether both the plaintiff and the Court would benefit from the assistance of counsel. Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Three factors are generally considered relevant in evaluating a motion for appointment of counsel in a Title VII case: (1) the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status; (2) the plaintiff's good faith efforts to secure counsel; and (3) whether plaintiff has established a prima facie claim of discrimination in the pleadings. See Slaughter v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 590 (8th Cir. 1984); Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 1984). The Court then attempts to evaluate the plaintiff's capacity to present the case adequately without aid of counsel.See In re Lane, 801 F.2d at 1043.
Given the nature of the legal issues in the complaint, the Court believes plaintiff is capable of proceeding without the assistance of counsel. The nature of plaintiff's claim is not particularly complex, and it appears plaintiff can gather and present the key facts underlying his cause of action. The Court will therefore deny plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 4]