Young v. Lacy et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES Plaintiff's 12 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel, without prejudice to reconsideration of Plaintiff's request for counsel in the future; GRANTS Plaintiff's 13 MOTION to Supplement, but DENIES the 13 MOTION to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/23/2017. (cc: Plaintiff, counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (arb)

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

Case No. 1:17-cv-03633

T.A. LACY; PERRY RICHMAN;
and AARON YOUNG,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 12), and
Motion to Amend and Supplement, (ECF No. 13). For the reasons that follow, the court
DENIES the Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, without prejudice to
reconsideration of Plaintiff’s request for counsel in the future, and GRANTS the Motion
to Supplement, but DENIES the Motion to Amend.
With respect to the motion for the appointment of counsel, the undersigned notes
that Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 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 United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has clearly stated that motions for the
appointment of counsel in civil actions should be granted “only in exceptional cases.”
Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). 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
1

F.2d 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 his case justifies the appointment of counsel because he has
been unable to find “counsel of his choice” and he is “not trained in legal procedures and
[has] a limited knowledge of law.” (ECF No. 12 at 1). Unfortunately, these ground are not
exceptional. Many pro se litigants are unable to find lawyers willing to represent them,
and many lack funds to hire counsel on an hourly basis. Most pro se plaintiffs lack legal
training and education. While Plaintiff’s incarceration undoubtedly makes it more
difficult for him to pursue his lawsuit, as does his professed lack of legal training, these
limitations do not, in and of themselves, satisfy the “exceptional” standard to justify the
appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Louis v. Martinez, Case No. 5:08-cv-151, 2010 WL
1484302, at *1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 12, 2010). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s filings, the
undersigned finds Plaintiff to be fully capable of presenting his claims at this stage of the
litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. However, should the
complexion of the case change in the future (for example, should the matter proceed to
trial), Plaintiff is not precluded from reasserting a request for the appointment of counsel.
In regard to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend or Supplement, the court grants the
motion to supplement, but denies the motion to amend given that Plaintiff does not seek
to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that it is not necessary to file a motion
to amend or supplement in order to submit additional documentation in support of an
existing complaint. A motion to amend is generally used to join new parties or claims,
while a motion to supplement is used to set out “any transaction, occurrence, or event
2

that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
Considering that (1) Plaintiff’s goal is to submit additional supportive documentation; (2)
all of Plaintiff’s supplemental documentation involves events that occurred prior to the
filing of the complaint, and (3) only one page of the documentation is dated after the date
the complaint was filed, a motion to supplement is unnecessary, while a motion to amend
is inappropriate. Moreover, while Plaintiff may file additional documentation in support
of his complaint in the future, should he choose to do so, he is not required to supply all
supporting documentation with his complaint. To comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, Plaintiff’s
complaint need only include “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction,” “a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Evidentiary
documentation in support of the claims asserted in the complaint should be submitted
later in the proceedings when required by rule, law, or court order.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel of
record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: August 23, 2017

3