Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-440 RM.
July 21, 2008
OPINION and ORDER
In his opening brief, pro se plaintiff David Miller states that he hopes to prove his case "with the assistance of counsel." [Doc. No. 19]. The court construes Mr. Miller's comment as a request for appointed counsel, and for the following reasons must deny that request.
Although claimants have a statutory right to counsel at the administrative disability hearing, 42 U.S.C. § 406 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1700, civil litigants have neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel. Klein v. Perry, 216 F.3d 571, 576-77 (7th Cir. 2000). A court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel, but before doing so must consider whether: (1) plaintiff has sought an appointment of counsel; (2) plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to secure private counsel; (3) other measures short of appointing counsel are appropriate; (4) the case is so difficult that it merits such an appointment; and (5) an appointment of counsel would provide a substantial benefit to the court or the parties. Id. at 577 (citing Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1997)).
Mr. Miller has not provided any information about his efforts to obtain counsel ( i.e., who he contacted, when he contacted them, and why they declined his request for assistance), and there is no indication that his case is difficult or that appointment of counsel would provide a substantial benefit to the court or the parties. The court cannot find under the circumstances that Mr. Miller's efforts to secure an attorney were reasonable, or that appointment of counsel is merited in this case.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Miller's request for appointment of counsel.
SO ORDERED.