Robinson v. Parker et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 3/7/2013. cc:counsel (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
ANTHONY L. ROBINSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12CV-P45-R

PHILIP PARKER et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 asks for appointment of counsel because he has been transferred to the Kentucky
State Reformatory Nursing Care because he suffered a mild stroke. He states that his “mental

1

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

capacity is not as normal as when this action first occurred.” However, shortly after filing this
motion, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. 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 18) 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:

March 7, 2013

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4413.009

2