McCright v. Andes

Background

Colvin McCright moved for a temporary restraining order directing jail officials to stop allegedly violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to grant him single-cell status and to stop issuing disciplinary reports. He argued that having a cellmate prevented him from sleeping, which he described as a major life activity under the Act. He also argued that disciplinary reports could increase his classification score, support a transfer to a higher-level institution, or create the impression that he was a program failure.

McCright separately moved for appointment of counsel, asking the court to appoint Michael Bien, an attorney litigating another case and familiar with the facts, or another attorney.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court applied the preliminary-injunction standard from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Under that standard, the person seeking relief must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also described a sliding-scale version of the same test, but explained that irreparable harm must be shown under either version.

The court denied the request for single-cell status. It found the request premature because the litigation was at an early stage and the record was too undeveloped to determine whether McCright was entitled to single-cell status. The court concluded that he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. It also found that, although extreme ongoing sleep deprivation could constitute irreparable harm, the record did not support that finding here.

The court denied without prejudice the request concerning disciplinary reports. It found that any transfer resulting from the reports was speculative and that McCright had not shown how a transfer to another prison would harm him. The court stated that he may file another request to prevent a transfer if future circumstances create a reasonable fear that a transfer is actually about to occur. It instructed him to explain why the transfer should be prevented and how being in another prison would harm him.

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that appointing counsel for an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is discretionary and generally requires exceptional circumstances. The relevant considerations include the likelihood of success on the merits and the litigant’s ability to present claims without a lawyer given the complexity of the legal issues.

The court denied McCright’s motion for appointment of counsel. It found that he had not shown exceptional circumstances, that the action did not present complex legal issues, and that he had ably prosecuted the case without assistance. The Clerk was directed to terminate docket entries 17 and 18.