Langley v. Huntington WV Police Dept (HPD) (Arresting Officer) et al, No. 3:2017cv03520 - Document 18 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 7/25/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Langley v. Huntington WV Police Dept (HPD) (Arresting Officer) et al Doc. 18 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 JAMES ALBERT LAN GLEY, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 3 :17-cv-0 3 52 0 H U N TIN GTON W EST VIRGIN IA H PD ( Arre s tin g Office r) ; W ESTERN REGION AL JAIL ( C. O. Mich ae l Yo rk) ; PRIME CARE MED ICAL, IN C. ( N u rs e Jo lain a) ; W EXFORD H EALTH SOU RCES, IN C. ( D r. Ch arle s Lye ) ; W . V. D EPT. o f CORRECTION S ( Co m m is s io n e r Jim Ru be n s te in ) , D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointm ent of Counsel. (ECF No. 16). 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 (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). Here, Plaintiff argues that his case justifies the appointm ent of counsel because he has been unable to find an attorney willing to accept his case. Unfortunately, this ground is 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. While Plaintiff’s incarceration undoubtedly m akes it m ore difficult for him to pursue his lawsuit, as does his presum ed lack of legal training, these lim itations likewise do not, in and of them selves, satisfy the “exceptional” standard to justify 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. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s m otion m ust be denied. 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 uly 25, 20 17
]]>
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.
