Richards v. Coffee County Sheriff Department et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 5

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 3/28/2007. (dmn)

Download PDF
Richards v. Coffee County Sheriff Department et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 5 Case 1:07-cv-00261-WKW-SRW Document 5 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ ANTHONY RICHARDS, SR. Plaintiff, v. COFFEE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. _____________________________ ORDER ON MOTION Pending before the court is Plaintiff's complaint filed March 26, 2007 which also contains a request for appointment of counsel. (See Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff's request for representation has been read, considered, and the same shall be denied. The court finds from its review of the complaint that Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate the facts and grounds for relief in the instant matter without notable difficulty. Furthermore, the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint is not of undue complexity and that he has not shown that there are exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel. See Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir.1999); Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993); see also Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, the court shall deny Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel at this time. The * * * * * 1:07-CV-261-WKW (WO) Case 1:07-cv-00261-WKW-SRW Document 5 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 2 of 2 request may be reconsidered if warranted by further developments in this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 1), is DENIED. DONE, this 28th day of March 2007. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?