Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180323_0000182.WTN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:14:17+00:00

Document:
WHITEVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., Defendants.
On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff Winfred Wright, who is incarcerated at the Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) In an order issued April 27, 2017, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 8.) The Clerk shall record the Defendants as the WCF and Correctional Officer First Name Unknown Matthews.
Along with the complaint, Wright also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 6.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” However, “[t]he appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right.” Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003); see also Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he plaintiffs were not entitled to have counsel appointed because this is a civil lawsuit.”); Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993) (no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case); Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 323 (7th Cir. 1993) (“There is no constitutional or . . . statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases . . . .”). Appointment of counsel is “a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” Lavado, 992 F.2d at 606 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances' exist, courts have examined the type of case and the abilities of the plaintiff to represent himself. This generally involves a determination of the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved.” Id. at 606 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Appointment of counsel is not appropriate when a pro se litigant's claims are frivolous or when his chances of success are extremely slim. Id. (citing Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1985)); see also Cleary v. Mukasey, 307 F. App'x 963, 965 (6th Cir. 2009) (same).
At this stage of the proceeding, because the complaint is being dismissed with leave to amend, Wright has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the Court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel. Therefore, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Also accompanying the complaint are separate motions in which Wright seeks to submit witness statements by three other WCF inmates: William Dykes (ECF No. 2), Maxwell Novack (ECF No. 3), and Chris Wheeler (ECF No. 4). Only the motions concerning Novack and Wheeler contain the statements referenced therein. Those statements are not sworn and notarized, nor do they qualify as unsworn declarations made under penalty of perjury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Therefore, the motions to submit the statements in support of Wright's complaint are DENIED.

References: § 1983
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1746