Fourth Circuit Reverses Denial of Counsel for “Low IQ” North Carolina Prisoner
by Anthony W. Accurso
In an opinion decided July 22, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion for appointment of counsel by a North Carolina prisoner for his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, finding that Kenneth Ray Jenkins’ “low IQ,” among other factors, entitled him to representation by an attorney.
Jenkins was detained at Wilson County Detention Center while awaiting trial in 2018. When jailers denied him his daily medications for diagnosed mental problems (depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder), a physical altercation ensued. Jenkins was placed in solitary confinement, where he attempted suicide. He was then placed in a “rubber room,” which he alleged was “infested” with feces, fouling the floor and ceiling.
While in the Rubber Room, the Court recalled, jailers fed Jenkins his food “on the floor near feces, prohibited him from washing his hands, and told him to ‘eat with his hands’ the ‘best way’ he could.” At least once, there were roaches on his food tray, he alleged; on another occasion, the tray was “soiled by a green mold-like substance.”
After a mental health evaluation, Jenkins was returned to the jail’s general population. He did not, however, file any grievances about the rubber room because guards allegedly denied him access to the forms.
Sometime in September or October 2018, Jenkins began bleeding from his rectum. This situation continued to worsen despite his protests until the jail approved a medical consult in February 2019. Doctors then “discovered three colon polyps, one of which they described as ‘the worst they [had] seen,’” the Court continued; the polyps were “linked to an helicobacter pylori infection, as well as diverticulitis and hemorrhoids.”
After Jenkins was moved to state prison, he filed a complaint in federal court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Wilson County Sheriff Calvin Woodard, and he included a request for appointment of counsel. Jenkins attempted to amend his complaint multiple times, and each motion also included a request for appointment of counsel. The district court “denied each request but did not explain the rationale for any of its decisions,” the Fourth Circuit recalled; the lower court’s orders denying the requests included only conclusory statements, such as “the facts of this case and plaintiff’s abilities do not present the requisite exceptional circumstances necessitating appointment of counsel.” The district court ultimately granted the sheriff’s motion for summary judgement, and Jenkins appealed.
The Fourth Circuit noted that before deciding whether to appoint counsel, “a district court must conduct a fact specific, two-part inquiry to assess whether a case presents exceptional circumstances.” That inquiry requires the court to determine “(1) whether the plaintiff ‘has a colorable claim’ and (2) considering the claim’s objective complexity and the plaintiff’s subjective abilities, whether the plaintiff ‘lacks the capacity to present it,’” quoting Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Court noted that Jenkins “could not access legal materials and evidence” and also had “a low IQ,” as well as lacking “general education and legal knowledge,” along with “a history of severe mental health issues”; he further “suffered from complications related to the COVID-19 pandemic at various points during the litigation.” Further, the Court found that the “absence of a lawyer with the ability to cross-examine” was in Jenkins’ case “especially problematic” since his arguments “turn[ed] on witness credibility, given the stark contrast between his account of the relevant events and Sheriff Woodard’s.”
Accordingly, the Court determined that “these facts demonstrate that this case presents the requisite exceptional circumstances necessitating appointment of counsel.” It therefore vacated the district court’s judgement and reversed denial of counsel, remanding the case for further proceedings. Before the Court, Jenkins was represented by appointed counsel Jeffrey P. Lamberson of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP in Richmond, Virginia. See: Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242 (4th Cir. 2024).
The case then returned to the district court, which appointed Jenkins counsel in October 2024 from attorneys Chelsea Pieroni and Kelly M. Dagger of Ellis & Winters LLP in Raleigh. The district court has also scheduled a settlement conference for March 2025, and PLN will share updates on developments as they become available. See: Jenkins v. Woodard, USDC (E.D.N.C.), Case No. 5:19-cv-03190.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login