Brumfield v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 and 21 MOTIONS for the Court to order the United States Marshals Service to transport Plaintiff to various places in West Virginia and elsewhere and 17 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 11/20/2015. (cc: Plaintiff) (mkw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
WILLIAM BRUMFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-14127

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 16, 17,
21). Two of the motions ask the Court to order the United States Marshals Service to
transport Plaintiff to various places in West Virginia and elsewhere. (ECF No. 16, 21).
Those motions are DENIED. The United States Marshals Service is a federal law
enforcement agency. As a general rule, the Marshals Service only transports individuals
who are in custody. The Marshals Service is not authorized to escort individuals around
the state and country to facilitate their running of errands. This is true even when the
individuals have civil actions pending in the United States District Court.
The third motion seeks the appointment of counsel; specifically, the appointment
of Christian Capece, Federal Public Defender. (ECF No. 17). This motion is also DENIED.
Although the Court may, in its discretion, request an attorney to represent Plaintiff in this
civil (not criminal) action, he has no constitutional right to counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
(2010); see also Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir.1975). The United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has made it clear that the appointment of counsel

in civil actions “should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d
779, 780 (4th Cir.1975). Whether sufficiently remarkable circumstances exist depends
upon the complexity of the claims and the ability of the indigent party to present them.
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir.1984); see also Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d
264, 266. (“[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.”) Here, Plaintiff fails
to present evidence or argument supporting the conclusion that his case meets the high
threshold necessary for the appointment of counsel. To the contrary, Plaintiff offers no
basis for his request. The Court has examined the record and finds that the claims asserted
by Plaintiff are simple; he has apparently presented these claims or other similar claims
before; he has significant experience in the judicial system, and he is quite capable of
presenting his claims without representation. Therefore, the circumstances do not justify
the appointment of counsel. In any event, Mr. Capece and the Federal Public Defender’s
Office provide representation to criminal defendants, not to plaintiffs in civil actions.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
ENTERED: November 20, 2015