Duff v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al (INMATE2)

Filing 6

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/8/05. (ajr, )

Download PDF
Duff v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al (INMATE2) Doc. 6 Case 2:05-cv-00627-MEF-CSC Document 6 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION ______________________________ A N T O N IO RODREGIS DUFF, # 1 8 6 551 P l a in tif f , v. B U L L O C K COUNTY C O R R E C T IO N A L FACILITY, et al., * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-627-F WO * * D e f e n d a n ts . __________________________________ O R D E R ON MOTION P la in tif f filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel on July 5, 2005. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff's request for representation has been read, considered, and the same shall be denied. T h e court finds from its review of the complaint that Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate th e facts and grounds for relief in the instant matter without notable difficulty. Furthermore, th e court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint is not of undue complexity and that he has not s h o w n 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 (1 1 th 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 c o u n se l at this time. The request may be reconsidered if warranted by further developments Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-00627-MEF-CSC Document 6 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 2 of 2 in this case. A c c o r d in g ly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 4), is D E N IE D . D o n e this 8th day of July, 2005. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F 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?