Rackley v. Western Regional Jail Authority et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 6 LETTER-FORM MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel without prejudice to reconsideration of Plaintiff's request for counsel in the future. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/12/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (hkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
SHAWN MICHAEL RACKLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-04209

WESTERN REGIONAL AUTHORITY;
LIEUTENANT MORRISON;
C. O. SPAULDING;
C. O. AKERS;
C. O. STAPLETON;
and C. O. THACKER,
Defendants .
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 6). 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 limited access to a law library, and the library has insufficient legal resources.
Unfortunately, this ground is not exceptional. Many pro se litigants have limited access
to legal publications. However, they are still able to prosecute their claims. 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 do not, in and of themselves,
satisfy the “exceptional” standard necessary 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).
Plaintiff also claims that he is illiterate, without supplying any additional
information or proof of that claim. The undersigned has examined the complaint and the
motion for appointment of counsel, and both documents are well-written and clear.
Consequently, Plaintiff appears capable of presenting his claims at this stage of the
litigation. Therefore, his 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: December 12, 2017