Young v. Lacy et al

Filing 144

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 126 Renewed MOTION for Special Prosecuting Attorney: Having reviewed plaintiff's filings, the court finds plaintiff to be capable of retaining counsel or presenting his claims. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 8/17/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mk)

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 144 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 955

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-03633

T.A. LACY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second renewed
motion for appointment of counsel.

(ECF No. 126.)

For the

following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff has one remaining claim in this case – a claim
for unlawful search, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
No. 137.)

(See ECF

There is no constitutional right to counsel in an

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1) (2010); see also Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298
(5th Cir. 1975).

Although the court has some discretion in

assigning counsel, the Fourth Circuit has clearly stated that
motions for the appointment of counsel in civil actions should
be granted “only in exceptional cases.”
F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975).

Cook v. Bounds, 518

When determining whether a

particular case rises to that level, the court must consider the
complexity of the claims in dispute and the ability of the
indigent party to present them.

Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 144 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 956

160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264,
266 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[N]o comprehensive definition of
exceptional circumstances is practical.

The existence of such

circumstances will turn on the quality of two basic factors-the
type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of the
individuals bringing it.”) (footnote omitted).
Plaintiff argues that he is not trained in law and cannot
afford counsel.

(ECF No. 126.)

are not exceptional.

Unfortunately, these grounds

Many pro se litigants are unable to find

lawyers willing to represent them, and many lack funds to hire
counsel on an hourly basis.
legal training and education.

Most pro se plaintiffs also lack
These limitations do not, in and

of themselves, satisfy the “exceptional” standard to justify the
appointment of counsel.

See, e.g., Christian v. Hale, 2019 WL

7559789, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. June 27, 2019), report and
recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3801549 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 13,
2019) (declining to appoint counsel where plaintiff “is
indigent, cannot afford to hire counsel, and has limited
knowledge of the law”); Louis v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1484302, at
*1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 12, 2010) (declining to appoint counsel even
in circumstances where the plaintiff was incarcerated, housed in
the special housing unit, subjected to continuous lock down, and
had restricted access to the law library and no opportunity to
obtain legal assistance from fellow inmates).
2

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 144 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 957

Having reviewed plaintiff’s filings, the court finds
plaintiff to be capable of retaining counsel or presenting his
claims.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and unrepresented
parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2020.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3