Opinion
Case No. A1-02-125
July 15, 2003
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 2002 the plaintiff, Keenan Daniels, was arrested in Stark County, North Dakota. The arrest was the result of a tip phoned in to the Dickinson Police Department by two Stark County Social Service employees. A dispatcher then relayed information to law enforcement officers from both the Dickinson Police Department and the Stark County Sheriff's Office. The dispatcher's statements allegedly contained additional information not given to her by the Social Service employees. When Daniels was arrested, the law enforcement officers also conducted a search of a duffle bag he had with him. All of the criminal charges stemming from the arrest were dropped after the State District Court found that the law enforcement officers used unreasonable force in conducting a Terry stop and suppressed the evidence from Daniels' duffle bag because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure.
Daniels has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that several employees of Stark County North Dakota and the City of Dickinson, North Dakota, violated his constitutional rights. Daniels also requested and was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. After an initial review of his complaint, the Magistrate Judge completed a Report and Recommendation recommending Daniels be allowed to proceed on two cognizable claims: (1) deprivation of liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and (2) unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This Court adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation in its entirety on April 1, 2003.
Daniels now seeks appointment of counsel and sets forth four reasons why counsel should be appointed:
1) The plaintiff is unable to afford counsel
2) The issues involved in this case are complex
3) The plaintiff, being incarcerated in California, has extremely limited access to the law library and no access to the North Dakota Century Code
4) The plaintiff has a limited knowledge of the law
II. DISCUSSION
Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Swope v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 851-52 (8th Cir. 1996)). A district court may make such an appointment at its discretion. Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir. 1992). A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether both the plaintiff and the court would benefit from the appointment of counsel. Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996). "In determining whether an indigent litigant is in need of appointed counsel, a number of factors are relevant including: the factual complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, the ability of the legal issues." Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991).
The Court finds that Daniels' case does not warrant the appointment of counsel. The case is not factually complex. There is no indication of whether there will be conflicting testimony as to the events that took place. Daniels has demonstrated an ability to investigate the facts. He has capably requested discovery from the defendants and has his own first-hand knowledge of the events.
More important, Daniels has demonstrated that he is able to capably present his claim. He has shown his ability not only through the complaint he filed, which the Magistrate Judge found contained several cognizable claims, but he has also participated in the preparation of the Court's Scheduling and Discovery Plan and has continually updated the Court with his current address to ensure he remains abreast of all documents filed in the case. The Court finds that Daniels' filings and pleadings are well-drafted, well-organized, and easy to understand. Daniels' filings also contain numerous citations to case law discussing similar claims which demonstrates his competence and his ability to research the law and understand complex issues. When a plaintiff possesses such abilities, the appointment of counsel may be properly denied. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding refusal to appoint counsel proper when a plaintiff's written presentations to the court were clear and detailed and illustrated the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts); Edgington v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding a plaintiff's well-written pleadings indicate his basic ability to state claims).
Finally, Daniels notes that the Defendants' answers contained citations to certain provision of the North Dakota Century Code. Daniels asserts that he does not have access to the North Dakota Century Code and argues this factor weighs in favor of appointing counsel. The Court agrees with Daniels that it is important for him to have access to these provisions of the North Dakota Century Code and concludes an incarcerated pro se plaintiff's alleged lack of access to legal materials can be remedied by the following accommodations: (1) the Clerk of Court is ordered to provide Daniels with a copy of Chapter 32-12.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, and (2) in all future filings where the defendants cite to North Dakota Century Code provisions, the defendants shall include as an exhibit copies of the specific North Dakota Century Code sections cited.
III. CONCLUSION
The court DENIES Daniels' Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Docket No. 22). The Court further ORDERS the Clerk of Court to provide Daniels with a copy of Title 32, Chapter 12.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. Finally, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to include, as an exhibit, copies of the specific North Dakota Century Code provisions cited in all future filings.
IT IS SO ORDERED