Stukes v. Locke

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 9 Motion to Change Venue to Baltimore Division; Striking the Appearances of Alan Lescht and Rani Vanessa Rolston, of the Firm Alan Lescht and Associates PC as Counsel for the Plaintiff; and DENYING 8 Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 5/21/2012. (c/m 5/22/12 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHARLES STUKES
Plaintiff
v.

GARY LOCKE
Secretary, United States Department of
Commerce
Defendant

*
*
*
*
*
*
* Civil Case No.: RWT 12cv681
*
*
*
*
*
*

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination claim against Defendant,
Gary Locke, Secretary, United States Department of Commerce. See ECF No. 1. On April 3,
2012, Plaintiff filed correspondence with this Court requesting appointment of counsel. See ECF
No. 8. Attached to this correspondence is a letter terminating Alan Lescht of Alan Lescht and
Associates PC as his Counsel. See Ex. 1, Letter Terminating Counsel, ECF No. 8-1. Although,
the letter did not address whether Plaintiff intended to also terminate Rani Vanessa Rolston of
Alan Lescht and Associates PC, this Court will assume that Ms. Rolston was also terminated
given that Plaintiff now seeks new counsel. Neither Mr. Lescht nor Ms. Rolston filed a motion
to withdraw their appearance. On May 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed what appears to be a Motion to
Change Venue to the Baltimore Division. See ECF No. 9.
Local Rule 501 governs the assignment of cases within the two divisions of this District.
The Plaintiff resides in Germantown in Montgomery County. Local Rule 501.4(a)(ii) provides
that a “case in which the United States, the State of Maryland, or one of their agencies and a
non-governmental entity or individual residing in Maryland are opposing parties shall be

assigned to a Judge sitting in the division of the Court in which the non-governmental party
resides.” Accordingly, this case was properly assigned to the Southern Division, and Plaintiff’s
motion will be denied.
A federal district court’s power to appoint counsel in civil actions under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) is a discretionary one, and may be considered where an indigent claimant presents
exceptional circumstances. See Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975); see also
Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). The question of whether such circumstances
exist in a particular case hinges on the characteristics of the claim and the litigant.

See

Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v.
U.S. District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Where a colorable claim exists but the litigant
has no capacity to present it, counsel should be appointed. Id.

Because Plaintiff has the

capacity to articulate his employment discrimination claim, this Court will not appoint counsel.
Accordingly, it is, this 21st day of May, 2012, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that the appearances of Alan Lescht and Rani Vanessa Rolston, of the firm
Alan Lescht and Associates PC, are hereby stricken as counsel for the Plaintiff Charles Stukes;
and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue to the Baltimore Division [ECF
No. 9] is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2