Holbrook v. Aldridge et al, No. 3:2021cv00170 - Document 33 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 32 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 6/8/2021. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Holbrook v. Aldridge et al Doc. 33 Dockets.Justia.com a plaintiff's financial ability to retain counsel, the efforts of the plaintiff to retain counsel, the merits of the case, and whether the plaintiff is capable of representing himself.”) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff argues that his case justifies the appointment of counsel, because he has been unable to find a lawyer to take his case. Unfortunately, this circumstance is not exceptional given that many indigent civil litigants are unrepresented. Therefore, standing alone, the inability to retain a lawyer is not a basis for the appointment of counsel. Altevogt v. Kirwan, No. CIV. WDQ-11-1061, 2012 WL 135283, at *3 (D. Md. Jan. 13, 2012) (“Altevogt's inability to retain counsel is not an exceptional circumstance.”). The undersigned has examined the complaint and the motion for appointment of counsel, and both documents are well-written and clear. The facts underlying Plaintiff’s claim are not complex, and he appears capable of presenting his claim at this stage of the litigation. Therefore, his motion must be denied. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. ENTERED: June 8, 2021
]]>
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.
