Cox v. Riley
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 9/24/2010. cc:counsel (KJA)
Cox v. Riley
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10CV-P121-R CLAUDE COX v. OFFICER JOHNATHAN RILEY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford an attorney (DN 10). 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). It is "a matter within the discretion of the court." Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) ("The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.") (emphasis added)). "`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). The Court finds that the complexity of the issues in this case does not necessitate the appointment of counsel at this stage in the litigation. On review of the documents filed by Plaintiff thus far, the Court finds that Plaintiff is articulate and able to represent himself sufficiently at this time. Plaintiff is also a frequent filer in this Court and is well aware of the legal process. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not set forth any "exceptional circumstances" warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (DN 10) 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:
September 24, 2010
Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of record 4413.005
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?