Martinez v. White et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 6 Motion for Leave to File Once Copy of the Brief. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 4/22/2013. cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
LEONEL MARTINEZ
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13CV-P53-R
RANDY WHITE, WARDEN et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on two pro se motions filed by Plaintiff.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (DN 5)
In a civil case, like this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, appointment of counsel is not a
constitutional right. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). It lies within the
discretion of the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel.”) (emphasis added); 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)). Appointment of
counsel “is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.’” Lavado, 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 early stage in the litigation. Further, based on a 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. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not set
forth any “exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly,
For these reasons, the motion for appointment of counsel (DN 5) is DENIED.
Motion for Leave to File One Copy of the Brief with a White Cover Page (DN 6)
Plaintiff states that although the rules require him to file five copies of his brief, he does
not have sufficient funds, and that although the rules require him to file his brief with a red cover
page, he does not have access to colored paper. The Court presumes Plaintiff is actually
referring to the complaint when he mentions “brief” in his motion. Regardless, the rules of this
Court do not require five copies or colored covers. Plaintiff may be referring erroneously to the
procedural rules of the Kentucky appellate courts. In this federal district court, however, one
copy of the complaint on white paper is all that is required. Plaintiff’s motion (DN 6), therefore,
is GRANTED.
Date:
April 22, 2013
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.005
2
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?