Summary
This federal district court order denies a pro se plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court explains that while it has statutory discretion to recruit counsel for indigent litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. The motion is denied without prejudice because the claims have not yet survived dispositive motion practice and the issues are not considered overly complex or exceptional at this early stage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should appoint or recruit counsel for Carr in his civil-rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
- Whether the circumstances of Carr's case were exceptional enough to justify recruitment of pro bono counsel before resolution of the pending dispositive motions.
Holdings
- A civil litigant proceeding in forma pauperis has no constitutional or general right to appointed counsel; the court may request counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) only in appropriate exceptional circumstances.
- Exceptional circumstances were not shown, and recruitment of pro bono counsel was premature because the case had not yet survived dispositive motion practice and the claims and plaintiff's circumstances were not unusual or sufficiently complex.
Key quotations
“There is no right to recruitment of counsel in federal civil litigation, but a district court has discretion to recruit counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” (Section B)
“Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” (Section D)
Factual background
Thomas Carl Carr, a parolee proceeding pro se, alleged that defendants conspired to deny him essential mental-health services and medication for 39 days, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He requested information about legal representation and asked the court to assign an attorney if he did not already have one. The court noted that dispositive motions filed by defendants had not yet been resolved.
Procedural history
Carr filed a § 1983 complaint alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from an alleged denial of mental-health services and medication. Defendants Wilkerson and Nyamu filed motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, which remained pending. Before those dispositive motions were resolved, Carr requested appointment of counsel, and the magistrate judge denied the request without prejudice.