Spencer v. Brott

Background

This order addressed Marvin Spencer’s fourth request in less than a year for appointment of counsel in the consolidated matters referred to as Spencer I and Spencer II. Spencer was representing himself. He said he had several serious medical conditions, that his abilities were failing, and that he had been unable to write or litigate the case for more than a year. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer.

Analysis

The court explained that people in civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Courts instead consider factors including the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate facts and present claims, and whether the case involves conflicting testimony.

The court found that Spencer’s filing history contradicted his claim that he had been unable to litigate. During the relevant period, he had filed numerous motions, letters, and notices, and during the previous 45 days he had returned 30 completed Marshal Service Forms, requested additional forms, sought to amend a complaint, filed a notice dismissing two defendants, provided a status update, and filed the counsel motion. The court did not doubt that Spencer had serious medical conditions, but found that he had not submitted current documentation from the correctional facility or medical providers specifically explaining how those conditions prevented him from proceeding. The court also noted that Spencer’s motion and supporting affidavit were unsigned, contrary to the signature requirement for papers filed by an unrepresented party.

Disposition

The court denied Spencer’s “Request for Attorney” without prejudice. It concluded that Spencer remained able to explain his positions, that the factual and legal issues were not unusually complex, and that he had not shown a specific obstacle to representing his own interests. The court also ordered that prior consistent orders remain in effect.