Stone v. Kilby Correctional Facility et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER ON MOTION that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 16 , is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 8/23/2011. (jg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RANDALL DWIGHT STONE, #275 049
KILBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., *
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 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 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); see also Miller v. McDaniel, 124 Fed. Appx. 488, 490 (9th Cir. 2005)
(holding that an inmate plaintiff with mental health problems was not entitled to appointment
of counsel because he demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims pro se).
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 (Doc. No. 16), is
DONE, this 23rd day of August 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?