Brewington v. Daniels et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER ON MOTION that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 8 , is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/7/2011. (jg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ALTERRA BREWINGTON, #278 273 *
D. DANIELS, 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 (11 th 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 (11 th Cir. 1993); Dean v.
Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11 th Cir. 1992); see also Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096
(11 th 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 (Doc. No. 8), is
Done, this 7 th day of October 2011.
/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?