Latimer v. Schnell

Background

Mark Latimer, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He asked the court to assign him an attorney for trial. The opinion identifies Paul Schnell and William Bolin as defendants but does not describe the underlying claims.

Legal standard

The court explained that plaintiffs in civil cases do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. In a civil-rights case, however, the court may request an attorney to represent a party when the circumstances justify it. Before doing so, the court must determine that an indigent plaintiff made a good-faith attempt to retain counsel and was unsuccessful. The court may then consider factors such as the factual and legal complexity of the case, the party’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether conflicting testimony exists.

Court’s analysis

The court found no record that Latimer had sought counsel and been unsuccessful. It therefore could not find that he had made the required good-faith attempt to retain counsel. The court also noted that Latimer’s motion did not explain why counsel should be appointed and only requested an attorney for trial. Because the pretrial scheduling order stated that the case was not scheduled to be ready for trial until July 8, 2024, the court found the request premature. The court further noted that the Clerk had provided Latimer with the court’s Pro Se Civil Guidebook and that his correspondence showed he had received and used it.

Disposition

Judge Douglas L. Micko ordered that Latimer’s Motion to Appoint Counsel was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court stated that Latimer may renew his request for appointment of counsel if the case goes to trial.