Langley v. Huntington WV Police Dept (HPD) (Arresting Officer) et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 7/25/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
JAMES ALBERT LANGLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-03520

HUNTINGTON WEST VIRGINIA HPD
(Arresting Officer); WESTERN REGIONAL
JAIL (C. O. Michael York); PRIME CARE
MEDICAL, INC. (Nurse Jolaina);
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
(Dr. Charles Lye); W. V. DEPT. of
CORRECTIONS (Commissioner Jim
Rubenstein),
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 16). For
the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion, without prejudice to
reconsideration of Plaintiff’s request for counsel in the future.
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
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).
Here, Plaintiff argues that his case justifies the appointment of counsel because
he has been unable to find an attorney willing to accept his case. Unfortunately, this
ground is 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. While
Plaintiff’s incarceration undoubtedly makes it more difficult for him to pursue his
lawsuit, as does his presumed lack of legal training, these limitations likewise do not, in
and of themselves, satisfy the “exceptional” standard to justify the appointment of
counsel. 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
capable of presenting his claims at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion must be denied.
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: July 25, 2017