Carter v. McClure et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ORDERED that Pla's 37 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 01/17/2013.(DAK)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla(via US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Lexington)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

BERNARD C. CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
N. MCCLURE, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5: 12-295-DCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

*** *** *** ***
On September 19, 2012, this Court denied the pro se plaintiff’s motion for appointment
of counsel. In relevant part, the Court noted:
The appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right and
is justified only in exceptional circumstances. Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999,
1006 (6th Cir. 2003). A court reviewing such a motion may consider: (1) the
complexity of the case, Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993);
(2) the ability of the plaintiff to represent himself competently, Lanier, 332 F.3d
at 1006; and (3) his likelihood of success on the merits. Cleary v. Mukasey, 307
F. App’x 963, 965 (6th Cir. 2009). Having considered these factors, the Court
concludes that this case does not present the kind of extraordinary circumstances
that would warrant the appointment of counsel for the plaintiff at the expense of
federal taxpayers. Carter’s motion will be denied.
[Record No. 5]
Notwithstanding this earlier determination, Plaintiff Bernard Carter has again filed a
motion for appointment of counsel. [Record No. 37] However, nothing has changed to alter the
Court’s earlier analysis. In short, Carter has not demonstrated appointment of counsel is required.
Accordingly, it is hereby
-1-

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s most recent motion for appointment of counsel [Record
No. 37] is DENIED.
This 17th day of January, 2013.

-2-