Watson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JAMES G. WATSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 3:25-CV-217-CEA-DCP

)

BRITTANY KNAP, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This case is before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and

Standing Order 13-02.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel

[Doc. 22]. Plaintiff acknowledges that “[t]here is no automatic right to counsel in civil cases[,]”

but he states that exceptional circumstances exist in his case, warranting the appointment of

counsel [Id. at 1]. He claims that he “is handicapped and has disabilities that substantially limit his

ability to prosecute this case, including difficulty responding to mail, preparing filings, and

appearing in person without assistance” [Id.]. He submits that he is entitled to counsel pursuant to

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

(“Rehabilitation Act”) [Id.]. Plaintiff contends, “The case involves civil-rights claims against

government officials, which are complex and require knowledge of constitutional law, procedure,

and evidence” [Id.]. In addition, he states that the “[a]ppointment of counsel will promote

efficiency, reduce procedural errors, and serve the interests of justice” [Id.]. In support of his

request, he has filed his declaration, claiming that he is handicapped and that his “condition limits

[his] ability to travel, process and respond to legal mail quickly, and prepare complex filings

without assistance” [Doc. 22-1 ¶ 1]. He submits that he “cannot adequately protect [his] rights

without appointed counsel or, at a minimum, reasonable accommodations such as electronic

service, modest deadline extensions, and remote appearances when necessary” [Id. ¶ 3].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person

unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The appointment of counsel in civil cases is not

a constitutional right, but the Court may use its discretion to appoint counsel in civil cases if

“exceptional circumstances” exist. Brubaker v. Barrett, 801 F. Supp. 2d 743, 763 (E.D. Tenn.

2011) (quoting Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993)). In determining whether

exceptional circumstances exist, courts examine the plaintiff’s ability to represent himself and the

type of case he filed, which “generally involves a determination of the complexity of the factual

and legal issues involved.” Id. (quoting Lavado, 992 F.2d at 606). The party requesting counsel

has the burden to show that exceptional circumstances exist. Id.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s total monthly income exceeds his monthly expenses, and he

paid the filing fee [Docs. 30 & 32]. But even if Plaintiff met the financial criteria for the

appointment of counsel, he has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist warranting the

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff claims that he cannot litigate this case without the assistance of

counsel due to his disabilities, but he has “managed to successfully initiate this action and file[]

motion[s] without the assistance of counsel[.]” Anderson v. Dugger, No. 2:24-CV-187,

2025 WL 2087801, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 21, 2025). Such actions “undercut[] a need for the Court

to appoint counsel.” Id. (footnote omitted). Further, neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act

apply to federal courts. Rockenhaus v. Agapiou, No. 2:25-CV-12716, 2026 WL 120834, at *1

(E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2026) (collecting cases), appeal denied, No. 2:25-CV-12716, 2026 WL

512233 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2026).!

And while Plaintiff states that his case is complex, the Court finds that this is not an

extraordinary case requiring the appointment of counsel. See Brown v. Smith, No. 24-11662, 2025

WL 20413, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 2, 2025) (noting that the plaintiffs “constitutional claims

[were] not exceedingly complex[,] and he ha[d] demonstrated an adequate understanding on how

to proceed in this case based [on] his many filings in this litigation’’).

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion [Doc. 22].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

Debra C. Poplin L

United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff references the need for other accommodations, including “electronic service,

modest deadline extensions, and remote appearances when necessary” [Doc. 22-1 4 3].With

respect to his request for electronic service, Rule 5 of the ECF Filing Rules and Procedures of this

Court provides, “A party to an action who is not represented by an attorney may, with the Court’s

permission, register as an E-Filer solely for purposes of that action.” He therefore may file a motion

to register as an E-Filer. To the extent he needs extensions and to appear remotely, he may also

file a motion at the appropriate time.