Jones v. Gibson et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/7/2015. (SCD)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla(via US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
DAMIAN L. JONES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SLOAN D. GIBSON, Acting
Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No.
14-CV-361-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

***
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Appointment of Counsel [DE 25], in which he seeks appointment of
counsel to represent him in this civil matter but has failed to
identify legal authority which would permit the relief he seeks.
The United States of America has filed a Response [DE 27], and
the Court is adequately advised with respect to this matter.
“A district court has discretion to appoint counsel for an
indigent civil litigant.”

Richmond v. Settles, 450 F. App'x

448, 452 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Reneer
v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 1992) (“The appointment
of counsel to civil litigants is a decision left to the sound
discretion of the district court, and this decision will be
overturned

only

when

fundamental

unfairness

the

denial

impinging

on

of
due

counsel
process

results

in

rights.”)).

However, a civil litigant has no constitutional right to the
1

appointment of counsel; rather, the appointment of counsel for a
civil

litigant

exceptional
Lavado

v.

“‘is

a

privilege

circumstances.’”
Keohane,

992

fundamentally

unfair

Id.

F.2d

(internal quotes omitted).
that

that

is

(6th

601,

justified

Cir.

605-06

only

2011)

(6th

by

(quoting

Cir.

1993))

While Plaintiff argues that it is
he

must

represent

himself

against

Defendants represented by counsel, this is not an exceptional
circumstance

warranting

appointment

of

counsel

without

more.

See Marr v. Foy, No. 1:07-cv-908, 2008 WL 5111849, *6 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 3, 2008) (“One does not acquire a right to counsel in
a civil case merely because one is proceeding pro se against a
party represented by counsel.”) (citing Luttrell v. Nuckell, 129
F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1997)); Richmond, 450 F. App’x at 452
(quoting Lavado, 992 F.2d at 605-06)); Jihad v. Simpson, No.
5:07CV-P197-R., 2008 WL 3992680, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 22, 2008).
The

Court

is

not

persuaded

that

the

factual

and

legal

issues before the Court in this matter are so complex as to
require

appointment

litigation.
that

of

counsel

at

this

early

stage

in

the

Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court concludes

Plaintiff

is

fairly

himself sufficiently.

articulate

and

able

to

represent

No exceptional circumstances exist which

warrant appointment of counsel to avoid fundamental unfairness
impinging on Plaintiff’s due process rights at this time.

2

Accordingly,

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

Appointment of Counsel [DE 25] is DENIED.
This the 7th day of October, 2015.

3

Plaintiffs’

Motion

for