Lee v. Mills et al (INMATE2)

Filing 27

ORDER that Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 11/4/2009. (dmn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ RASHAD C. LEE, #213 823 Plaintiff, v. KELLI MILLS, et al., Defendants. ____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-602-WHA (WO) ORDER ON MOTION Pending before the court is Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. While an indigent plaintiff may be appointed counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), a court retains broad discretion in making this decision. See Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir.1999). Here, the court finds from its review of the pleadings filed in this matter that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993); Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992); 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. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 26), is DENIED. Done, this 4th day of November 2009. /s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?