Griffin v. Southern Health Partners, Inc. et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 10/16/2012 denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. cc:counsel, Plaintiff, pro se (PHB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
ANTHONY GRIFFIN

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV-P174-M

SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (DN 2).
In a civil case such as this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appointment of counsel is not
a constitutional right. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). Title 28 of the
United States Code, Section 1915(e)(1)1 indicates that court-enlisted assistance of counsel is not
mandatory but merely a matter of discretion. See, e.g., Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384
(6th Cir. 1987) (“‘[T]he appointment of counsel in a civil case is, as is the privilege of
proceeding in forma pauperis, a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not
a right.’”) (quoting United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)). “‘It is a
privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.’” Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d at
606 (quoting Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985)). “In determining whether
‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, courts have examined ‘the type of case and the abilities of the
plaintiff to represent himself.’ This generally involves a determination of the ‘complexity of the
factual and legal issues involved.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford an attorney to represent him. He further states
that due to the “difficulty in grasping the legal issues in these cases and figuring out which

1

Section 1915(e)(1) provides that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person
unable to afford counsel.” (emphasis added).

prison officials can properly be held liable,” he needs counsel appointed to represent him. As
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in this action in forma pauperis, the Court must conduct an
initial review of the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court finds that the
complexity of the issues in this case does not necessitate the appointment of counsel at this early
stage in the litigation. Further, based on a review of the documents filed by Plaintiff thus far, it
appears that Plaintiff is articulate and able to represent himself sufficiently at this time.
Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not set forth any “exceptional circumstances”
warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (DN 2) is DENIED.
Nothing in this Order shall preclude Plaintiff from requesting appointment of counsel at a future
point in this action should circumstances arise to justify such an appointment.
Date:

October 16, 2012

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.003

2