James Barry Murphy v. Derran C. Broyles, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON JAMES BARRY MURPHY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-242-KKC Plaintiff, v. ORDER DERRAN C. BROYLES, et al., Defendants. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (R. 29) filed by Plaintiff James Barry Murphy. Magistrate Judge Matthew Stinnet has filed a Report and Recommendation (R. 36) in which he recommends that the Court deny the motion without prejudice. Murphy has not objected to that recommendation. Further, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusion.

Murphy has also filed a letter (R. 38) addressed to the undersigned in which he requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him. He supports his motion with arguments that the magistrate judge addressed in an opinion (R. 35) denying a prior motion by Murphy for appointment of counsel. The Court will deny this current motion for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s opinion.

The Court should make clear that it has no authority to appoint counsel to represent an indigent plaintiff in a civil action like this one. Unlike with criminal cases, “appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir. 1993). Instead, a federal statute provides that, in a civil action brought by an indigent plaintiff, the Court may “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(1) (emphasis added).

The problem is that, “although the court is authorized to request a lawyer to represent an indigent prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), there are no funds appropriated to pay a lawyer or even to reimburse a lawyer's expenses.” Clarke v. Blais, 473 F. Supp. 2d 124, 125 (D. Me. 2007). Thus, requesting counsel to represent a plaintiff in a civil case is reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” Lavado, 992 F.2d at 606-07.

At this point, the Court finds that this case does not present such exceptional circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1) The Report and Recommendation (R. 36) is ADOPTED as the Court’s opinion; 2) The Motion for Summary Judgment (R. 29) is DENIED without prejudice; and 3) Murphy’s request for counsel (R. 38) is DENIED.

This 12" day of March, 2026.

LE Signed By: uy) : Karen K. caldwell Ate. “ax +~-—: United States District Judge