Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SMITH v. HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 5:12-CV-62 (MTT). (2013)

Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia Number: infdco20130705a10 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 23). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), "[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." However, "[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right." Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169 , 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted); see also Hunter v. Dept. of Air Force Agency, 846 F.2d 1314 , 1317 (11th Cir.198
More

ORDER

MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 23). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), "[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." However, "[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right." Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted); see also Hunter v. Dept. of Air Force Agency, 846 F.2d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir.1988) (stating that decision is within discretion of district court). Rather, "[i]t is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances." Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174. In exercising its discretion regarding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent party, "the district court typically considers, among other factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and whether the claim is factually or legally so complex as to warrant the assistance of counsel." Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).

Here, the Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because her representation requests after the withdrawal of her former counsel have been unsuccessful. However, appointment of counsel is unwarranted because the claims are neither factually nor legally complex. See Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174 (finding that exceptional circumstances were not established where essential facts and legal doctrines were ascertainable without assistance of court-appointed counsel). Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the appointment of counsel, the motion is DENIED.

In light of the Plaintiff's difficulty obtaining new counsel, however, the Defendants have consented to the extension of discovery. Accordingly, discovery is to be completed by September 3, 2013. Dispositive and Daubert motions are due by October 3, 2013.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer