Ford v. Campbell et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 9

ORDER denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 9/6/05. (djy, )

Download PDF
Ford v. Campbell et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 9 Case 2:05-cv-00822-MEF-VPM Document 9 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION ______________________________ H A R O L D OTIS FORD , #119 971 Plaintiff, v. DO NA L CAM PB EL L, et al., * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-822-A WO * Defendants. * __________________________________ O R D E R ON MOTION P e n d i n g before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff's request for representation has been read, considered, and the same shall be d e n i e d . The court finds from its review of the complaint that Plaintiff is able to adequately a r t ic u late the facts and grounds for relief in the instant matter without notable difficulty. F u r t h e rm o r e , the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint is not of undue complexity and t h a t he has not shown that there are exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of coun sel. See Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir.1999); Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 1 8 9 , 193 (11th Cir. 1993); see also Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). T h e r e f o r e, in the exercise of its discretion, the court shall deny Plaintiff's request for a p p o i n t m e n t of counsel at this time. The request may be reconsidered if warranted by further d e v e l o p m e n t s in this case. Case 2:05-cv-00822-MEF-VPM Document 9 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 2 of 2 A c c o r d i n g l y , it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel ( D oc . No. 5), is DENIED. D o n e this 6th day of September, 2005. / s / Vanzetta Penn McPherson V A N Z E T TA PENN MCPHERSON U N I T E D 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?