From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CANADA v. TAPP

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division at London
Feb 23, 2010
CIVIL CASE NO: 10-32-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Feb. 23, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO: 10-32-GFVT.

February 23, 2010


MEMORANDUM ORDER


Plaintiff, a federal prisoner confined at the Western Kentucky Correctional Complex in Fredonia, Kentucky, mailed correspondence to the undersigned magistrate judge that is most properly construed as a pro se request for the appointment of counsel. In the future, the plaintiff is forewarned that he should not communicate directly with any judge assigned to his case because ex parte contact is not permitted. Rather, plaintiff should file any documents concerning this case with the Clerk of Court in order to ensure that an adequate record is made, and that service is effected on opposing counsel.

Having considered plaintiff's improperly filed document on this one occasion, plaintiff's construed motion seeking the appointment of counsel will be denied. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel ordinarily does not apply in the context of civil litigation. MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988); see also Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1998) ("Absent exceptional circumstances, there is no automatic right to appointment of counsel in a civil rights case."); Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding failure to appoint counsel in a section 1983 case was not error because an inmate "has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case"); Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) ("A civil litigant, including a prisoner pursuing a section 1983 action, has no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel."). Plaintiff's claims are not unusually complex, and the pleadings he has filed to date are evidence of his abilities to adequately pursue remedies in this court pro se.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The pro se letter received by the undersigned magistrate judge from plaintiff on February 19, 2010 shall be docketed and filed of record as a construed motion for the appointment of counsel;

2. The construed motion for the appointment of counsel is hereby denied;

3. Any documents filed by plaintiff concerning this case shall bear the caption of the case as noted above, and shall be filed with the Clerk of Court. A failure to file documents in the record will result in the court disregarding or striking said documents in the future.


Summaries of

CANADA v. TAPP

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division at London
Feb 23, 2010
CIVIL CASE NO: 10-32-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Feb. 23, 2010)
Case details for

CANADA v. TAPP

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT WAYNE CANADA, PLAINTIFF v. DAVID A. TAPP, et al., DEFENDANTS

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division at London

Date published: Feb 23, 2010

Citations

CIVIL CASE NO: 10-32-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Feb. 23, 2010)