Rodriguez v. Bryson, 5:17-cv-10 (MTT). (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20191112b75
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . Plaintiff Hjalmar Rodriguez again 1 moves to appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Doc. 193. "Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right." Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169 , 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Rather, "[i]t is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances." Id. "In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court typically considers, among
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . Plaintiff Hjalmar Rodriguez again 1 moves to appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Doc. 193. "Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right." Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169 , 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Rather, "[i]t is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances." Id. "In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court typically considers, among o..
More
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Hjalmar Rodriguez again1 moves to appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 193. "Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right." Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Rather, "[i]t is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances." Id. "In determining whether to appoint counsel, 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).
In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and that the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. The Court concludes that no exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel are present in this case. Accordingly, the motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 193) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. This is the Plaintiff's third such motion. Docs. 95; 165.
Source: Leagle
