Unpublished Dispositionin Re Jimmy M. Coffey, Petitioner, 905 F.2d 1537 (6th Cir. 1990)

ORDER

The petitioner, a Kentucky inmate who has a pro se civil rights action pending in the district court, seeks a writ of mandamus directing that court to grant his motion for appointment of counsel. In response, the district court has submitted a copy of its docket sheet.

The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations where the petitioner can show a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62 (1978); Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-03 (1976). It cannot be used to control a district court in the exercise of discretionary duties. In re: Post-Newsweek Stations, 722 F.2d 325, 329 (6th Cir. 1983); City of Cleveland v. Krupansky, 619 F.2d 576, 578 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834 (1980). The appointment of counsel for an indigent litigant in a civil action is a matter that falls within the discretion of the district court. Moss v. Thomas, 299 F.2d 729 (6th Cir. 1962) (per curiam). It is not a right that can be enforced by means of an extraordinary writ.

It therefore is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.