Rackley v. Western Regional Jail Authority, No. 3:2017cv04209 - Document 7 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 6 LETTER-FORM MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel without prejudice to reconsideration of Plaintiff's request for counsel in the future. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/12/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (hkl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rackley v. Western Regional Jail Authority Doc. 7 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 SH AW N MICH AEL RACKLEY, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 3 :17-cv-0 4 2 0 9 W ESTERN REGION AL AU TH ORITY; LIEU TEN AN T MORRISON ; C. O. SPAU LD IN G; C. O. AKERS; C. O. STAPLETON ; an d C. O. TH ACKER, 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. 6). 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 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). Dockets.Justia.com (“[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 lim ited access to a law library, and the library has insufficient legal resources. Unfortunately, this ground is not exceptional. Many pro se litigants have lim ited access to legal publications. However, they are still able to prosecute their claim s. 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 do not, in and of them selves, satisfy the “exceptional” standard necessary 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 ). Plaintiff also claim s that he is illiterate, without supplying any additional inform ation or proof of that claim . The undersigned has exam ined the com plaint and the m otion for appointm ent of counsel, and both docum ents are well-written and clear. Consequently, Plaintiff appears capable of presenting his claim s at this stage of the litigation. Therefore, his 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 : Decem ber 12, 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.
