King v. Tangilag et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel; Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 11/12/15. cc: Plaintiff(pro se), General Counsel, Defendants (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
JOSHUA LANE KING

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-P185-TBR

DR. SHASTINE TANGILAG et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Joshua Lane King, a state prisoner, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Appointment of Counsel by Plaintiff.
(DN 11). In support of his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel; his
imprisonment greatly limits his ability to litigate; the issues involved in this case are complex
and will require significant research and investigation; and he has limited knowledge of the law.
Appointment of counsel, however, is not a constitutional right in a civil case such as this
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),1 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, 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.’

1

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

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. Moreover, Plaintiff’s described circumstances which he claims
necessitate the appointment of counsel are not atypical of prisoner litigants. See KnowlesBrowder v. Ca. Forensic Med. Group Staff, No. CIV S-05-1260, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20973,
at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2006) (“Most pro se litigants believe that their cases are complex, and
all prisoners find that their access to law libraries is limited.”). Furthermore, based on a review
of the documents filed by Plaintiff thus far, it appears that he is logical in his arguments and
familiar with the workings of the legal system and, therefore, 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 stage.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (DN 11) is
DENIED.
Date:

cc:

November 12, 2015

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel
4413.011