Do federal courts have the inherent authority to make coercive appointments of counsel in civil cases?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989), the Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide statutory authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel” in civil cases. Id. at 310. The Court expressly reserved whether federal courts have the inherent authority to make such appointments. Id. The Fifth Circuit answered this question in Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2015), holding that a federal court has the inherent authority to make a coercive appointment of counsel in a civil case that presents exceptional circumstances. The Seventh Circuit in this case, along with the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Eleventh Circuits, disagree, holding that federal courts lack inherent authority to appoint counsel in all civil cases. This case therefore presents the question reserved in Mallard: Do federal courts have the inherent authority to make coercive appointments of counsel in civil cases? @