Armstrong v. Dunlap et al

Filing 9

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/14/17 denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (Related Doc. 4 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO -----------------------------------------------------JAMES M. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL DUNLAP, ET AL, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 1:17-CV-803 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 4] -----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff James M. Armstrong brings a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 16, 2017, Armstrong filed a motion for appointment of counsel.1 Appointment of counsel for prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which states that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”2 The Sixth Circuit has stated: Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. 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.3 At this time, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff Armstrong. Armstrong’s complaint shows a basic understanding of the legal process. The Court sees no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 1 Doc. 4. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 3 Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 2 Case No. 1:17-CV-803 Gwin, J. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 14, 2017 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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?