Jeffrey Cohen v. Rod Rosenstein, 691 F. App'x 728

Jeffrey Brian Cohen, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, denial of reconsideration under Rule 59(e), denial without prejudice of a request for appointed counsel, and the court’s stay of his civil suit pending resolution of his criminal direct appeal.
The district court found Cohen’s inability to retain appellate counsel resulted from restitution and criminal forfeiture judgments against him, not from a pretrial seizure of assets by the defendants.
The district court denied the preliminary injunction and Rule 59(e) motion, denied counsel without prejudice, and stayed the civil action during Cohen’s criminal direct appeal.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed jurisdictional limits first, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of appointed counsel but had jurisdiction to review the preliminary injunction denial and the stay under interlocutory appeal provisions and unusual circumstances.
On the merits the Fourth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in (1) imposing the stay given the case posture and relation to the criminal appeal and (2) denying preliminary injunctive relief because Cohen failed to show a likely success on the merits or irreparable harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of denial of appointed counsel	Denial of counsel is reviewable on appeal	Denial of counsel order is neither final nor an appealable interlocutory/collateral order	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Denial of preliminary injunction	Injunction needed to protect right to chosen appellate counsel and prevent harm	Injunctive relief not warranted; inability to retain counsel stems from restitution/forfeiture judgments	Affirmed: Cohen failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm
Stay of civil suit pending criminal appeal	Stay inappropriate; civil claims may proceed	Stay appropriate given overlap with criminal direct appeal and case posture	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion to stay the case
Denial of Rule 59(e) reconsideration	Reconsideration warranted	District court did not abuse discretion in denying relief	Affirmed: denial of Rule 59(e) not an abuse of discretion

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (discusses finality and appealability principles)
Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (limits on interlocutory review of stays)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (relation of civil claims to criminal proceedings)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standards)
Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1980) (absolute immunity does not bar prospective relief)
United States v. Watson, 793 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2015) (courts may affirm on any basis in the record)
Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 1997) (extraordinary nature of preliminary injunction relief)
Privitera v. Cal. Bd. of Med. Quality Assurance, 926 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1991) (reviewing stays in unusual circumstances)
United States ex rel. Lutz v. United States, 853 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2017) (unusual-circumstances approach to interlocutory jurisdiction)