Delk v. Hardeman County Correctional Facility, 1:16-cv-01275

Plaintiff Adrian Deshun Delk, an HCCF inmate, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on October 21, 2016, with motions to proceed IFP and to appoint counsel.
The Court granted IFP and began screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; the case remains in screening and defendants have not been served.
Delk submitted an extensive initial filing (27‑page complaint, 137 pages of exhibits, 46 pages of medical records) and later added many more exhibits, bringing the record to ~342 pages.
Delk moved for appointment of counsel and for issuance of process for defendants; the Court considered these motions while screening the complaint.
The Court denied the motion to appoint counsel, finding Delk had not shown "exceptional circumstances," and denied the motion to issue process because screening was incomplete.
The Court permitted filing of additional exhibits but declined to consider them during screening and directed Delk not to file further exhibits until a later, appropriate stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appointment of counsel	Delk requested counsel to represent him in this civil § 1983 action.	Not applicable (case in screening; defendants unserved).	Denied — no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases; appointment requires "exceptional circumstances," not shown.
Issuance of process	Delk asked the court to issue process for defendants immediately.	Not applicable.	Denied — court will not issue process while case remains under statutory screening.
Volume of exhibits	Delk submitted extensive exhibits to support claims and sought to have them filed/considered.	Not applicable.	Court allowed filing but refused to consider additional exhibits during screening; limited consideration to complaint allegations only.
Screening standard/application	Delk implicitly argued supporting documents should be considered now.	Court must screen under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A based on complaint allegations.	Court will determine whether claims survive screening using only the complaint; exhibits may be considered later if case proceeds.

Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999 (6th Cir. 2003) (appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a constitutional right)
Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2002) (no entitlement to appointed counsel in civil litigation)
Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601 (6th Cir. 1993) (appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances; courts consider case complexity and plaintiff’s ability to self-represent)
Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319 (7th Cir. 1993) (no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases)