Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Guerriero

Full title: METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN GUERRIERO and…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 18, 2011

NO. 5:11-CV-29-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2011)

Opinion

NO. 5:11-CV-29-FL.

August 18, 2011

ORDER

WILLIAM WEBB, Magistrate Judge

This cause is before the Court upon the following motions pro se motions filed by Defendant Kevin Gallagher ("Defendant"):

1) A request for the appointment of counsel (DE-18);

2) A request for miscellaneous relief (DE-25); and

3) A motion for an extension of time (DE-29).

Each of these motions has been referred to the undersigned and is now ripe for adjudication.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel (DE-18)

Defendant first states that he is "actively seeking legal counsel to help [him] deal with this case." (DE-18). He further notes that "[t]he lawyers [he] spoke [to] were far [too] expensive . . ." He therefore requests that this Court appoint him counsel. While federal funds are available to compensate defense attorneys in criminal cases, see 18 U.S.C. § 30006A(2)(B) (2000), the Court itself has no funds to appoint and pay attorneys in civil actions. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2000), requires a court to provide for representation only in "exceptional circumstances." Whisenant v. Yaum, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4^th Cir. 1984) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006) does not authorize compulsory appointment of counsel), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Absent such exceptional circumstances, the court's authority to request counsel is discretionary, not mandatory. Id. Whether "exceptional circumstances" exist which warrant the appointment of counsel depends on two factors: "the type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of the individuals bringing it." Id. No exceptional circumstances have been presented by Defendant in this case. Defendant is clearly literate and has been able to file coherent pleadings with the Court. The legal standards in this case are not so complex that Defendant will be severely prejudiced by proceeding pro se. Because the Court concludes that the assistance of counsel is not required, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

Motion for miscellaneous relief (DE-25)

Motion for an extension of time (DE-29)

inter alia Id. Id. Id.

Conclusion

For the aforementioned reasons, the instant motions (DE's 18, 25, 29) are DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Raleigh, North Carolina.