Taylor v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners John Does 1-25 et al, No. 1:2013cv01688 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff has not satisfied the standard for appointment of counsel. While he may qualify for pauper status, he does not indicate that he made any independent effort to secure counsel. Moreover, a review of thi s complaint indicates that the case is not so complex that the Court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith (related document 3 ). Judge Benita Y. Pearson 12/23/2013. (R,Li)

Download PDF
Taylor v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners John Does 1-25 et al Doc. 4 (1:13cv1688) PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION EDWARD TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF, COMMISSIONERS, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:13cv1688 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 3] This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Edward Taylor’s Motion For Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff requests legal representation for his civil rights complaint against several Cuyahoga County employees. He asserts his civil rights were violated when he unknowingly entered into an invalid plea agreement. By statute, "the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel in a civil case is a privilege, however, and not constitutional right. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993). Justification for appointed an attorney must be based on exceptional circumstances. Id. Thus, while the Court has the power to provide counsel in a civil case, United States v. McQuade, 579 Dockets.Justia.com (1:13cv1688) F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978), it is discretionary and not often invoked. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 608 (1993) (constitutional right to counsel protected by Sixth Amendment is explicitly confined to criminal prosecutions). Because it is not practical to rely on any "comprehensive definition of exceptional circumstances"; Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir.1982); courts resolve this issue through a fact-specific inquiry. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986). The Court is left to examine the pleadings and documents in the record, analyze the merits of the claims, the complexity of the case, the pro se litigant's prior efforts to retain counsel, and his ability to present his claims. Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Dep't, 763 F.2d 757, 760 (6th Cir.1985); Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir.1985). Plaintiff has not satisfied the standard for appointment of counsel. While he may qualify for pauper status, he does not indicate that he made any independent effort to secure counsel. Moreover, a review of this complaint indicates that the case is not so complex that the Court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.1 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 2 (1:13cv1688) IT IS SO ORDERED. December 23, 2013 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.