Young v. Lacy et al, No. 1:2017cv03633 - Document 20 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES Plaintiff's 12 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel, without prejudice to reconsideration of Plaintiff's request for counsel in the future; GRANTS Plaintiff's 13 MOTION to Supplement, but DENIES the 13 MOTION to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/23/2017. (cc: Plaintiff, counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Young v. Lacy et al Doc. 20 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA BLU EFIELD D IVISION LARRY ARN OLD YOU N G, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 1:17-cv-0 3 6 3 3 T.A. LACY; PERRY RICH MAN ; an d AARON YOU N G, D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointm ent of Counsel, (ECF No. 12), and Motion to Am end and Supplem ent, (ECF No. 13). For the reasons that follow, the court D EN IES the Motion for the Appointm ent of Counsel, without prejudice to reconsideration of Plaintiff’s request for counsel in the future, and GRAN TS the Motion to Supplem ent, but D EN IES the Motion to Am end. With respect to the m otion for the appointm ent of counsel, the undersigned notes that Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (20 10 ); see also Hardw ick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). Although the Court has som e discretion in assigning counsel, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has clearly stated that m otions for the appointm ent of counsel in civil actions should be granted “only in exceptional cases.” Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). When determ ining whether a particular case rises to that level, the Court m ust consider the com plexity of the claim s in dispute and the ability of the indigent party to present them . W hisenant v. Yuam , 739 1 Dockets.Justia.com F.2d 160 , 163 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). (“[N]o com prehensive definition of exceptional circumstances is practical. The existence of such circum stances will turn on the quality of two basic factors-the type and com plexity of the case, and the abilities of the individuals bringing it.”) (footnote om itted). Plaintiff argues that his case justifies the appointm ent of counsel because he has been unable to find “counsel of his choice” and he is “not trained in legal procedures and [has] a lim ited knowledge of law.” (ECF No. 12 at 1). Unfortunately, these ground are not exceptional. Many pro se litigants are unable to find lawyers willing to represent them , and m any lack funds to hire counsel on an hourly basis. Most pro se plaintiffs lack legal training and education. While Plaintiff’s incarceration undoubtedly m akes it m ore difficult for him to pursue his lawsuit, as does his professed lack of legal training, these lim itations do not, in and of them selves, satisfy the “exceptional” standard to justify the appointm ent of counsel. See, e.g., Louis v. Martinez, Case No. 5:0 8-cv-151, 20 10 WL 148430 2, at *1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 12, 20 10 ). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s filings, the undersigned finds Plaintiff to be fully capable of presenting his claim s at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s m otion m ust be denied. However, should the com plexion of the case change in the future (for exam ple, should the m atter proceed to trial), Plaintiff is not precluded from reasserting a request for the appointm ent of counsel. In regard to Plaintiff’s Motion to Am end or Supplem ent, the court grants the m otion to supplem ent, but denies the m otion to am end given that Plaintiff does not seek to file an am ended com plaint. Plaintiff is advised that it is not necessary to file a m otion to am end or supplem ent in order to subm it additional docum entation in support of an existing com plaint. A m otion to am end is generally used to join new parties or claim s, while a m otion to supplem ent is used to set out “any transaction, occurrence, or event 2 that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplem ented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Considering that (1) Plaintiff’s goal is to subm it additional supportive docum entation; (2) all of Plaintiff’s supplem ental docum entation involves events that occurred prior to the filing of the com plaint, and (3) only one page of the docum entation is dated after the date the com plaint was filed, a m otion to supplem ent is unnecessary, while a m otion to am end is inappropriate. Moreover, while Plaintiff m ay file additional docum entation in support of his com plaint in the future, should he choose to do so, he is not required to supply all supporting docum entation with his com plaint. To com ply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, Plaintiff’s com plaint need only include “a short and plain statem ent of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” “a short plain statem ent of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “a dem and for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Evidentiary docum entation in support of the claim s asserted in the com plaint should be subm itted later in the proceedings when required by rule, law, or court order. It is so ORD ERED . The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. EN TERED : August 23, 20 17 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.
