Filed: Aug. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Introduction Before me 1 is a pro se prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by Andre J. Hunt against Frank Sunquist and Mark Ashcroft. 2 Hunt has twice moved for appointment of counsel. 3 The defendants have not responded to either motion. Analysis It is well-settled that plaintiffs in civil cases do not have a federal constitutional right to counsel. 4 Rather, appointed counsel in such cases is "
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Introduction Before me 1 is a pro se prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by Andre J. Hunt against Frank Sunquist and Mark Ashcroft. 2 Hunt has twice moved for appointment of counsel. 3 The defendants have not responded to either motion. Analysis It is well-settled that plaintiffs in civil cases do not have a federal constitutional right to counsel. 4 Rather, appointed counsel in such cases is "a..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR., Magistrate Judge.
Introduction
Before me1 is a pro se prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Andre J. Hunt against Frank Sunquist and Mark Ashcroft.2 Hunt has twice moved for appointment of counsel.3 The defendants have not responded to either motion.
Analysis
It is well-settled that plaintiffs in civil cases do not have a federal constitutional right to counsel.4 Rather, appointed counsel in such cases is "a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances."5 In that regard, courts look to the type of case and the ability of the plaintiff to represent himself, and conduct this analysis in the context of the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved.6 That decision is committed to the discretion of the court.7 A request for appointment of counsel by a prisoner alleging excessive force under §1983 is analyzed under this standard.8
Here, both the facts and the applicable law are straightforward and the number of parties involved is acknowledged to be limited. Hunt alleges that he was physically assaulted by the defendants when they responded to Hunt's jail cell after Hunt "had flooded [it] with water from the toilet and sink."9 This allegation does not involve a level of legal or factual complexity that would warrant the appointment of counsel for Hunt.
Moreover, the mere fact that Hunt is 20 years old10 does not, of itself, constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel.11 While extreme youth12 or advanced age13 may itself be indicative of a plaintiff's inability to represent himself, the "exceptional circumstances" test centers on the demonstrated skills of each individual plaintiff, regardless of age. At this stage of the proceedings, a plaintiff exhibits his ability to represent himself by submitting, as Hunt has done, "coherent and legible pleadings" that "reflect[] [the plaintiff's] ability to express himself to the Court."14 Further, Hunt's other claim that he is unfamiliar with the legal system15 is simply "a common issue among pro se prisoner litigants" that does not state an exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel.16
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Hunt's motions for appointment of counsel17 are denied without prejudice.
