Stoufer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
STEVEN STOUFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAUL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION and
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-SLG
ORDER
Before the Court at Docket 10 is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion requesting the
Court accept his motion to add counsel as an ex parte filing. Mr. Stoufer indicated
he sought to file the motion on ex parte because the motion seeking counsel
contained confidential personal information about him. Given the public’s right of
access to court records, only the confidential portion of any filing should be the
subject of a motion to file ex parte. However, the Court will grant the motion to
permit the entire filing at Docket 10 to remain an ex parte filing on the docket and
will address the Motion Requesting Volunteer Attorney filed at Docket 10-1 on the
merits.
This is a civil case, not a criminal case. And although a defendant in a
criminal case has a right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment of
Case 3:20-cv-00046-SLG Document 13 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-SLG, Stoufer v. FBI, et al.
Order
Page 2 of 3
the United States Constitution, generally a person has no federal right to an
appointed attorney in a civil action.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a district court “may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel.” “The decision to appoint counsel
in a civil suit is one of discretion. . . . A district court must determine whether a)
there is a likelihood of success on the merits; and b) the prisoner is unable to
articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. None of
these factors is dispositive; rather they must be considered cumulatively.”2 Without
these factors, there are no “exceptional circumstances” under which the Court may
appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).3 And although the Court may
request a volunteer attorney in exceptional cases, it has no power to make a
mandatory appointment.4
At this stage of the litigation, this Court cannot evaluate Mr. Stoufer’s
likelihood of success on the merits. And although section 1915(e)(1) permits the
Court to request a volunteer attorney, at present this Court has no list of volunteer
attorneys from which it may request counsel to represent Mr. Stoufer. Moreover,
1 See Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441, 131 S.Ct. 2507, 2516 (2011) (“[T]he Sixth
Amendment does not govern civil cases.”); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.
2009) (“Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.”).
2 Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970).
3 Id.; Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (“[A] court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint
counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”) (citations omitted).
4 Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-08 (1989).
Case 3:20-cv-00046-SLG Document 13 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-SLG, Stoufer v. FBI, et al.
Order
Page 3 of 3
Mr. Stoufer has demonstrated that he is able to articulate his claims pro se in light
of the complexity of the legal issues involved, such that this case is not an
“exceptional” one that necessitates the assistance of counsel.
For the reasons discussed above, the Motion to File Ex Parte at Docket 10
is GRANTED; the underlying Motion Requesting Volunteer Attorney at Docket 10-
1 is DENIED.
DATED this 12th day of June, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00046-SLG Document 13 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 3