United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

640 F.
2d 474
Robert Allen RAY, P 1201, State Correctional Institution,

Pittsburgh, Pa. 15233, Mike Silverman, P 1484 SCI, Pgh.,
Eddie Harris, P 1414 SCI, Pgh., Robert Harris, K3448 SCI,
Pgh. and Steven Shawley, Y1816 SCI, Pgh. for themselves and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
Robert Allen Ray, P 1201, Appellant,
v.
William B. ROBINSON, Commissioner of Correction,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
James F. Howard, Superintendent, State Correctional
Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15233, Thomas
Seiverling, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
and Complaint Officer, State Correctional Institution,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15233, Lawrence Weyandt, Major of
the Guard, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15233, and Charles J. Kozakiewicz, Captain,
State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15233, Individually and in their own capacity.
No. 80-1780.
United States Court of Appeals,

Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Nov. 6, 1980.
Decided Feb. 9, 1981.
Jose Hernandez-Cuebas, Pa. Dept. of Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa., for

appellees.
James D. Crawford, Carole E. Handler, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant;
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.
Before SLOVITER and MARIS, Circuit Judges, and BROTMAN, *
District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
I.
1
Appellant, Robert Allen Ray, is one of five prisoners in the State Correctional
Institution in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who brought a Civil Rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1343 against various state
officials alleging that defendants' enforcement of a prison rule prohibiting the
covering of doors and windows, confinement of inmates to cells with
inadequate floor space, and retaliation against prisoners who filed
administrative complaints violated the prisoners' constitutional rights. Plaintiffs
sought a declaratory judgment that their Eighth Amendment rights had been
infringed and an injunction against further violations. The complaint does not
seek damages. The district court granted plaintiffs permission to proceed in
forma pauperis. Thereafter Ray moved for appointment of counsel. The
magistrate assigned to the case denied this request stating:(I)t appearing that the
Criminal Justice Act does not provide funds for the appointment of counsel to
prosecute civil rights actions, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for
the appointment of counsel be and the same is hereby denied.
Ray filed a motion requesting reconsideration of his motion for appointment of

counsel. The district court denied this request, stating that "(b)ecause there are
no provisions in law for the appointment of counsel at the expense of the
Government to prosecute prisoner civil rights actions, the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration must also be denied." Ray appeals from this order.
II.
3
Preliminarily, we note that this appeal has been presented as an ex parte matter.
Appellant has been represented by counsel appointed by this court from among
those attorneys within the circuit who volunteer to appear on behalf of indigent
litigants in cases where there is no provision for an award of counsel fees.1
Defendants were represented in the proceeding in the district court by one of
Pennsylvania's Deputy Attorney Generals, who notified this court by letter that
his office would not be filing a responsive brief nor would it present oral
argument. Although no reason was given for declining to participate in this
appeal, defendants may have assumed they have no interest in the issue of
appointment of volunteer counsel in the present posture of the litigation.2
Furthermore, defendants, as public officials, may deem it unseemly to oppose
appointment of counsel for their adversaries. Under these circumstances, we

have no assurance that the issue can be presented in an adversary context,
because the same situation is likely to reoccur should the issue arise again. We
deem the substantive issues to be significant. Therefore, despite our reluctance
to adjudicate matters without the benefit of briefs submitted by all parties to the
dispute, we will consider the issues raised by the appeal on the basis of a brief
submitted only by appellant.
III.
4
We must first decide whether we have appellate jurisdiction, because the order
appealed from does not terminate the litigation and therefore is not a final order
as that term is ordinarily used. Appellant contends that this appeal may lie
because the order denying his motion for reconsideration of request for
appointment of counsel is the final disposition of a right claimed by him which
is separable from, and collateral to, the rights he asserts in his cause of action.
Appellant accordingly relies on the collateral order doctrine enunciated in
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93
L.Ed. 1528 (1949).
That doctrine was analyzed this Term by the Supreme Court in Firestone Tire
& Rubber Co. v. Risjord, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981),
where the Court held that an order refusing to disqualify counsel is not
appealable before the conclusion of the litigation. The Court reiterated that
there is only a "small class" of orders which fit within the following definition
of collateral orders: "(T)he order must conclusively determine the disputed
question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the
action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Id. at
----, 101 S.Ct. at 674, quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,
468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978).
The order denying counsel in this case meets the first part of the collateral
order test because the only issue is whether the district court has the authority
to appoint counsel for civil rights plaintiffs. The district court conclusively
determined that question by the decision manifesting its belief that it had no
authority to appoint counsel in this type of case. The second part of the test is
similarly met because the appointment of counsel question is separate from the
merits of the action in this case. Had the district court exercised its discretion to
deny counsel on the ground that plaintiff's claim on its face lacked merit, it
might be more difficult to meet the separability requirement. That was not the
reason articulated by the district court for its decision. Finally, we must decide
whether the district court's order is effectively unreviewable on final appeal, the
third part of the test. In United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 860, 98
S.Ct. 1547, 1552, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978), the Court stated that the order sought
to be appealed must involve "an asserted right the legal and practical value of
which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial." The order
denying counsel differs from the disqualification of an attorney already in the
case, which the Court in Firestone held was unreviewable as a collateral order
because meaningful review was available at the conclusion of the trial. It is
apparent that a decision on appellant's need for counsel must be made before
the trial if it is to be of any practical effect to him.
7
This court as well as others has held that an order denying counsel is appealable
as a collateral order. See Hudak v. Curators of University of Missouri, 586 F.2d
105, 106 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985, 99 S.Ct. 1799, 60 L.Ed.2d
247 (1979); Caston v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir.
1977); Spanos v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 470 F.2d 806, 807 n.3 (3d
Cir. 1972); Miller v. Pleasure, 296 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied,
370 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 1592, 8 L.Ed.2d 830 (1962). We believe there is nothing
in the Firestone decision which derogates from the reasoning in these cases.
Therefore, fully cognizant of the "limited class" of final collateral orders, we
hold that the order in this case falls within that category.
IV.
8
As we have indicated, we believe that the decision of the district court on the
motion for appointment of counsel was based on its determination that because
the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A, provides no funds for attorneys
fees in civil actions by prisoners, the court is without any discretion to appoint
counsel for such prisoners. The magistrate's ruling also appears to have been
grounded on the view that there was no power to appoint counsel without
compensation to represent an indigent in a civil case. These rulings overlook
the express provision in Section 1915(d) of the Judiciary Code which gives the
court discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent in civil cases
such as this. Section 1915 provides, in relevant part:
9 Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or
(a)
defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without
prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit
that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state
the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that he is entitled to
redress.
10 The court may request an attorney to represent any such person unable to employ
(d)
counsel and may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied
that the action is frivolous or malicious.

11
28 U.S.C. 1915 (emphasis added).
12
Appellate courts construing this section have consistently held that it gives the
district court discretion to appoint counsel in an in forma pauperis civil
proceeding. In Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1971), the court
stated that although it "is true that there exists no statutory or constitutional
right for an indigent to have counsel appointed in a civil case ... federal courts
do possess the statutory power to make this appointment, if within the court's
discretion the circumstances are such that would properly justify it." (emphasis
added). A factual situation similar to that presented here occurred also in Smith
v. Blackledge, 451 F.2d 1201, 1203 (4th Cir. 1971), where Judge Sobeloff
stated:
13
It appears that plaintiff's request for appointed counsel was denied by the
District Judge. In his appellate brief, plaintiff refers to a letter he received from
the Judge which purportedly states that the request was denied because in civil
suits there are no provisions allowing for the appointment of counsel. If this
was indeed the District Judge's view, it was mistaken. The Judicial Code, 28
U.S.C. 1915(d), vests the court with discretion to appoint counsel for an
indigent in a civil action. Bowman v. White, 388 F.2d 756 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 393 U.S. 891, 89 S.Ct. 214, 21 L.Ed.2d 172 (1968). If the District
Judge was proceeding under this erroneous view of the law, his judgment
would be subject to reversal and remand. See United States v. Williams, 407
F.2d 940 (4th Cir. 1969); United States v. Wilson, 450 F.2d 495 (4th Cir.
1971).
14
In United States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978), the court held that
the district court's failure to appoint counsel under section 1915(d) on the
ground that the court had no authority whatsoever to appoint counsel for civil
litigants was an error of law. Furthermore, this court made explicit the authority
of the district court to appoint counsel to represent plaintiffs filing civil rights
and habeas corpus actions. In Scott v. Plante, 532 F.2d 939, 949-50 (3d Cir.
1976), we stated:
15
The foregoing outline of the legal and factual issues presented by Scott's several
complaints, when compared with the district court's treatment of them,
demonstrates that more serious consideration should have been given to Scott's
repeated requests for the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915(d). Certainly in New Jersey, where the bar has a long tradition of
voluntary service, and where three fine law schools engage in extensive public
service, there was no need for the court to go it alone.
16
We agree with appellant that it is apparent that the district court did not exercise
its discretion. A failure to recognize the existence of authority to exercise
discretion does not amount to its exercise. Schultz v. Cally, 528 F.2d 470, 476
(3d Cir. 1975). If a district court fails to exercise its discretion, that is itself an
abuse of discretion. See Pollard v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 598 F.2d 1284,
1293 (3d Cir.) (Adams, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917, 100 S.Ct.
232, 62 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979).
17
Appellant goes further and seeks to have us hold that failure to appoint counsel
here would amount to an abuse of discretion. Appellant argues that counsel
should be appointed for an indigent prisoner if the appointment will materially
aid the court, shorten the litigation, and contribute to economical use of judicial
resources and contends that by their very nature, civil rights proceedings
brought by prisoners for injunctive relief may require appointment of counsel.
Further, appellant contends counsel "should be appointed if the suit can
withstand a motion to dismiss and is not frivolous or without merit." Appellant's
Brief, p. 20.
18
Because of the diverse nature of the cases in which motions to appoint counsel
are made, we deem it inadvisable to establish any general standard as to when
counsel should be appointed. The factors which courts have considered in
making such decisions are available in the case law. See, e. g., Peterson v.
Nadler, 452 F.2d 754, 757-58 (8th Cir. 1971). We express no opinion on
whether counsel should be appointed in this case, leaving that decision for the
district court in the first instance.
19
However, if the district court was concerned about the availability of lawyers
willing to undertake such cases without assurance of compensation, we take
this opportunity to point out that there has been increasing consideration given
to the social responsibility of lawyers to provide pro bono publico legal
services. In 1975 the American Bar Association House of Delegates explicitly
reaffirmed the professional obligation of each lawyer to provide public interest
services, and in 1979, serious discussion began on mandating a minimum
service as part of the proposed Rules of Professional Conduct. Palmer &
Aaronson, Placing Pro Bono Publico in the National Legal Services Strategy,
66 A.B.A.J. 851 (1980). The comments made by Judge Gibbons as to New
Jersey lawyers in Scott v. Plante, 532 F.2d at 949-50, are equally applicable to
Pennsylvania lawyers. The Pennsylvania bar also has a long tradition of
voluntary service and there are six fine law schools in the Commonwealth
which engage in extensive public service.

20
For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the order of the district court denying
the motion for the appointment of counsel, and remand for further
consideration in accordance with this opinion.
Hon. Stanley S. Brotman, United States District Judge for New Jersey, sitting
by designation
The court expresses its appreciation to Carole E. Handler, who was appointed
counsel to represent appellant in this appeal
Defendants may in fact have an important interest in whether counsel is

appointed. If plaintiff prevails on the merits, he will undoubtedly request an
award of counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. See Maine v. Thiboutot,
448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980); Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S.
122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98
S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

640 F.

Robert Allen RAY, P 1201, State Correctional Institution,

United States Court of Appeals,

Jose Hernandez-Cuebas, Pa. Dept. of Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa., for

OPINION OF THE COURT

Ray filed a motion requesting reconsideration of his motion for appointment of

appointment of counsel for their adversaries. Under these circumstances, we

that the action is frivolous or malicious.

28 U.S.C. 1915 (emphasis added).

which engage in extensive public service.

Defendants may in fact have an important interest in whether counsel is

You might also like