Hixson v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS 21 22 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 6/2/15. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
________________________________________________________________________
TIMOTHY SHANE HIXON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 14-1087-JDT-egb

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Timothy Shane Hixon, who is incarcerated at the Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution (“RMSI”), has filed a motion for a speedy trial and the appointment
of counsel [DE# 21] and a motion to set a pretrial conference [DE# 22]. The motions are
DENIED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the “court may request an attorney to represent
any such person unable to employ counsel.” However, “[t]here is no constitutional or . . .
statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases.” Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 323 (7th
Cir. 1993), and Ҥ 1915(d) does not authorize the federal courts to make coercive
appointments of counsel” to represent indigent civil litigants, Mallard v. United States
Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). Generally, a court will only appoint counsel in
exceptional circumstances. Willett v. Wells, 469 F. Supp. 748, 751 (E.D. Tenn. 1977).
Although “no comprehensive definition of exceptional circumstances is practical,”

Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982), courts resolve this issue through a
fact-specific inquiry. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
Examining the pleadings and documents in the file, the court analyzes the merits of the
claims, the complexity of the case, the pro se litigant’s prior efforts to retain counsel, and
his ability to present the claims. Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Dep’t, 763 F.2d 757,
760 (6th Cir. 1985); Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985).
In the present case, a review of the complaint indicates that the case is not so
complex that the court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel at this time.
As for the motions to set a “speedy” trial date and a pretrial conference, the court
will set deadlines in due course. The court currently has 330 open cases, all of which
require the court’s attention. There is nothing in Plaintiff’s case that requires it to be
moved to the head of the line to the detriment of other plaintiffs.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2