Willis v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 00-5281
Decision Date | 28 December 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00-5281,00-5281 |
Citation | 274 F.3d 531 |
Parties | (D.C. Cir. 2001) James A. Willis, a/k/a Jimmy Willis, Appellant v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., Appellees |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (96cv01455)
James H. Lesar argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Meredith Manning, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard Jr., U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney.
Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Randolph and Tatel, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.
This case presents an issue of first impression for this circuit: what criteria should guide district courts in deciding motions for the appointment of counsel in cases brought under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA")?
James A. Willis is serving time for drug offenses. He filed a FOIA action in 1996 seeking the release of numerous documents. The documents, he claims, will exonerate him. After bringing suit, Willis filed two motions for the appointment of counsel. FOIA does not contain a provision authorizing the appointment of counsel. Willis therefore invoked the general civil statute: "The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The district court denied both motions and then granted summary judgment against Willis.
On Willis's appeal, we held that the failure of the magistrate judge, who was managing the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, to provide any reasons for refusing to appoint counsel for Willis necessitated a remand. Willis v. FBI, No. 98-5071, 1999 WL 236891 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 19, 1999). We stated that the district court or the magistrate judge will need to determine whether the criteria set forth in Poindexter v. FBI, 737 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1984), a Title VII case, should be adopted for FOIA cases.
On remand, the magistrate judge issued a report explaining why he had denied Willis's motions for counsel. See Report and Recommendation of March 6, 2000. Willis had shown that he was capable of representing himself, his FOIA action did not involve complex legal or factual issues, the case would not require discovery, and the interests of justice would not be served by appointing counsel. See id. at 5-8.
The district court adopted the report. The court concluded that Local Civil Rule 83.11(a)(4)(B)--rather than Poindexter--provides the relevant factors for deciding motions for the appointment of counsel in FOIA cases. The local rule provides: D.D.C. Civ. R. 83.11(a)(4)(B).
Neither Willis nor any other indigent civil litigant is guaranteed counsel. The discretionary decisions of district courts whether to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) will be set aside only for abuse. See Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986); Luttrell v. Nickel, 129 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1997). Here the magistrate judge, whose report and recommendation the court adopted, followed the criteria in Local Civil Rule 83.11(a)(4)(B). The magistrate determined that counsel need not be appointed because Willis had shown through numerous coherent filings that he was capable of representing himself and making logical presentations to the court. The magistrate also based his denial on his determination that Willis's FOIA case did not involve complex legal or factual issues and, like many FOIA cases, would not require any discovery. Willis points out that an analysis of the merits of his case was absent from the magistrate's report, and he argues that the magistrate's explanation for denying counsel was therefore insufficient. We disagree. Given the magistrate's conclusion that Willis was capable of handling his relatively straightforward FOIA case unaided, the magistrate did not need to go any further.
In addition, we reject Willis's contention that the court erred in selecting Local Civil Rule 83.11 as the appropriate standard rather than Poindexter's multi-factor test. The Poindexter criteria are the plaintiff's ability to afford an attorney; the merits of the plaintiff's case; plaintiff's efforts to secure cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Willis v. United States Department of Justice
...Judgment, and dismissed Plaintiff's case in its entirety. Id., Docket No. [106]. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed. Willis v. FBI, 274 F.3d 531, 533 (D.C.Cir.2001) (holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied Plaintiff's request for C. Executive Office of U......
-
Saunders v. Davis
...by statute to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); accord Willis v. FBI, 274 F.3d 531, 532 (D.C. Cir. 2001). In determining whether it is appropriate to appoint counsel to a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis,20 courts in ......
-
Brown v. Children's Nat'l Med. Ctr.
...1, 2 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam) (citations omitted), and no indigent civil litigant is guaranteed counsel. Willis v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 274 F.3d 531, 532 (D.C.Cir.2001). The Court has the discretion, however, to appoint counsel to represent an indigent pro se party under 28 U.S.......
-
Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
... ... challenges her [ 1 ] transfer from Federal Medical Center ... Rochester (“FMC Rochester”) in ... several federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of ... Prisons (“BOP”) and Department of Justice ... “undertake an independent investigation to assure ... itself of its own subject matter ... Dec. 2, 2015) (quoting ... Willis v. FBI , 274 F.3d 531, 532-33 (D.C. Cir ... 2001)) ... ...