Moorer v. Caroline Steel Group, LLC et al
ORDER denying 34 Motion for appointment of counsel, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 11/7/11. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ANTHONY B. MOORER,
CAROLINE STEEL GROUP, LLC, et al., )
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10CV705-MHT
This action is presently before the court on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel (Doc. # 34). Plaintiff commenced the present action without the assistance of counsel
and, in his motion, provides no indication that he is unable to represent himself. The facts
underlying the plaintiff’s claims for relief are relatively simple and the law applicable to such
claims is not complex. “The fact that a plaintiff would be helped by counsel is not sufficient
to require appointment.” Rizo v. Alabama Department of Human Resources, 228 Fed. Appx.
832, 834 (11th Cir. 2007)(unpublished opinion). The court concludes that the circumstances
of this case do not justify appointment of counsel. See Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320
(11th Cir. 1999)(plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel and court
should appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances); see also Hunter v. Department
of the Air Force, 846 F.2d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 1988); Wills v. Postmaster General, 300
Fed. Appx. 748, 750 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2008)(unpublished opinion)(subsequent history omitted);
Cataldo v. St. James Episcopal School, 213 Fed. Appx. 966, 969 (11th Cir.
2007)(unpublished opinion). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
DONE, this 7th day of November, 2011.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF 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?