Taylor v. Jones et al

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND COMPEL SETTLEMENT. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 3/13/19. (mbm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

CALEB ANDERSON TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARCUS JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-cv-02647-STA-egb

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL
AND COMPEL SETTLEMENT

On August 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint for violations of his civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 4.) On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff
filed pro se Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 76) and “Order of Settlement” (ECF No. 75).
Upon the Court’s consideration of the Motions, both are DENIED. The Court will address each
in turn below.
The Court has discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”)
(emphasis added); Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261 (6th Cir.1992) (“The appointment of
counsel to civil litigants is a decision left to the sound discretion of the district court, and this
decision will be overturned only when the denial of counsel results in fundamental unfairness
impinging on due process rights.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Such an
appointment in a civil case is not a constitutional right; rather, “it is a privilege that is justified

only by exceptional circumstances.” Richmond v. Settles, 450 F.App’x 448, 452 (6th Cir. 2011)
(citing Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993)). In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court shall examine the nature of the case and the
plaintiff’s ability to represent himself. Id. This requires the Court to assess the complexity of
the case’s factual and legal issues. Richmond, 450 F.App’x at 452. The Court will not appoint
counsel to represent an indigent pro se civil litigant when the litigant’s claims are frivolous or
when the chances of the litigant’s success are extremely slim. Richmond, 450 F.App’x at 452. It
is Plaintiff’s burden to show that “exceptional circumstances” exist. Brubaker v. Barrett, 801
F.Supp.2d 743, 763 (E.D. Tenn. 2011).
A review of the Complaint and subsequent filings indicates that the case is not so
complex that the Court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel at this time. In his
Motion, Plaintiff merely states that he is “requesting that an attorney be appointed to Plaintiff . . .
and the honorable Judge to grant Plaintiff’s motion of order for requesting an appointed
attorney.” (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any facts indicating that
exceptional circumstances exist. Plaintiff appears to understand the facts of his case and
applicable law sufficiently to represent himself at this stage in the proceedings. Nothing in the
record indicates that Plaintiff’s circumstances are more exceptional than other similarly situated
plaintiffs bringing civil rights actions. Because this case is not an exceptional one, the Motion to
Appoint Counsel is DENIED.
The Court now turns its attention to Plaintiff’s “Motion of Order for Settlement” (ECF
No. 75). In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to settle with Plaintiff in the
amount of $35,000. Defendants responded in opposition on March 11, 2019. (ECF No. 77.)
Defendants state that there is no settlement agreement between the parties. Plaintiff’s request

would have been better suited in his prayer for relief. It is not within the Court’s role to
circumvent the judicial process and order parties to settle. A settlement is, at its very essence, a
matter agreed upon by the parties prior to a court rendering its decision on the case. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion of Order for Settlement is DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion of Order for
Settlement are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: March 13, 2019