Smith v. West Virginia Regional Jail Authority, No. 3:2015cv03387 - Document 16 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 6/29/2015. (cc: Plaintiff, attys, and any unrepresented party) (mkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. West Virginia Regional Jail Authority Doc. 16 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION JOH N MACK SMITH , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 3 :15-cv-0 3 3 8 7 JOE D ELON G, Exe cu tive D ire cto r, W EST VIRGIN IA REGION AL JAIL & CORRECTION AL FACILITY AU TH OIRTY, D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointm ent of Counsel. (ECF No. 10 ). For the reasons that follow, the Court D EN IES the m otion, without prejudice to reconsideration of Plaintiff’s request for counsel in the future. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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 to assign counsel in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has m ade it clear that the assignm ent of counsel in civil actions “should be allowed 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 F.2d 160 , 163 (4th Cir.1984); see also Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266. (“[N]o com prehensive definition of exceptional circum stances is practical. The existence of Dockets.Justia.com 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)). Here, Plaintiff argues that his case justifies the appointm ent of counsel on the grounds that (1) he has been unable to hire an attorney; (2) he has no funds to pay an attorney; and (3) the defendant can and has retained counsel. Unfortunately, these reasons do not rise to the level of “exceptional.” Many pro se litigants are unable to find lawyers willing to take their cases, and m any lack funds to hire counsel on an hourly basis. While Plaintiff’s incarceration undoubtedly m akes it m ore difficult for him to pursue his lawsuit, as does his lack of legal training, these lim itations likewise do not, in and of them selves, satisfy the “exceptional” standard and m erit the appointm ent of counsel. 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 capable of presenting his claim s at this stage of the litigation. Therefore, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s m otion for the appointm ent of counsel is D EN IED . 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 : J une 29, 20 15
]]>
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.
