SMITH v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 5:11-cv-275-MP-GRJ. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120323953
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Doc. 19, Petitioner's motion for an extension of 30 days within which to file his response to Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 17). The Court will grant the motion and give Petitioner until April 20, 2012 to respond to the motion to dismiss. This matter is also before the court on Petitioner's Motion To Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 20.) The appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a constitutional right; rather, it i
Summary: ORDER GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Doc. 19, Petitioner's motion for an extension of 30 days within which to file his response to Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 17). The Court will grant the motion and give Petitioner until April 20, 2012 to respond to the motion to dismiss. This matter is also before the court on Petitioner's Motion To Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 20.) The appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a constitutional right; rather, it is..
More
ORDER
GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 19, Petitioner's motion for an extension of 30 days within which to file his response to Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 17). The Court will grant the motion and give Petitioner until April 20, 2012 to respond to the motion to dismiss.
This matter is also before the court on Petitioner's Motion To Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 20.) The appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a constitutional right; rather, it is "a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner." Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987); Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1712, 1720 (11th Cir. 1999).
Upon reviewing the pleadings in this action, the Court finds that there are no exceptional circumstances to merit the appointment of counsel at this time. The difficulties presented to the pro se Plaintiff are typical of those faced by other litigants, and the facts of this case are not complex. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel will thus be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion (Doc. 19) for an extension of 30 days within which to file his response to Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have until April 20, 2012 to file a response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 17).
2. Petitioner's Motion To Appoint Counsel (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
