Wright v. Bates et al (INMATE2)

Filing 34

ORDER granting 32 Motion for Leave to File motion for appointment of counsel as further set out; denying 32 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 3/4/09. (vma, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ WILLIE JAMES WRIGHT, #3998 Plaintiff, v. * * * 2:08-CV-965-WKW (WO) MEDICAL STAFF IN THE M.C.D.F. - * DR. BATES, et al., * Defendants. ____________________________ ORDER ON MOTION Pending before the court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for appointment of counsel. Upon consideration of the motion , it is ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED. Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. 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 request may be reconsidered if warranted by further developments in this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. DONE, this 4th day of March 2009. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF 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?