Brown v. Kentucky State Penitentiary et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/9/2011. cc:counsel (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH

MARK E. BROWN

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10CV-P188-R

KENTUCKY STATE PENITENTIARY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On the same date that the Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion for appointment of counsel,
Plaintiff Mark E. Brown filed another motion seeking the appointment of counsel (DN 48). He states
that he is trying his best to find an attorney to represent him on a contingent-fee basis and that he
cannot afford to retain counsel otherwise because he is indigent. He attaches as an exhibit a letter to
him from Michael P. Sullivan, Esq., who explains that he cannot handle Plaintiff’s case as it is
outside of his area of practice.
As the Court explained in its ruling on Plaintiff’s first motion, appointment of counsel is not a
constitutional right in a civil case. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993).
Appointment of counsel is justified only in exceptional circumstances. Id. at 606. The relevant
factors that must be looked at in determining if exceptional circumstances exist are the complexity of
the issues involved and the ability of the plaintiff to represent himself. Id.
For the same reasons that the Court denied Plaintiff’s initial motion for appointment of
counsel, the Court finds that denial is warranted again. The complexity of the legal issues in this case
does not necessitate the appointment of counsel, and, based on the pleadings filed thus far, it

appears that Plaintiff is familiar with the workings of the legal system and able to sufficiently
represent himself at this time. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (DN 48) is DENIED.
Date:

May 9, 2011

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4414.009

2