Murphy v. Gordon et al(MAG+)

Filing 33

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney 31 is DENIED. Plaintiff is encouraged to seek counsel to represent her in this matter, but otherwise SHALL proceed with the prosecution of this case in the manner it was filed - pro se. Pl aintiff's Motion for Appearance requested to speak with Judge Thompson 32 is DENIED. If Plaintiff seeks a hearing to discuss matters directly related to THIS CASE, she SHALL file a motion for a hearing. However, the court REMINDS Plaintiff that on or before November 1, 2024, she SHALL file a LEGIBLE Amended Complaint in which she states her claims CLEARLY and in ONE DOCUMENT. Signed by Honorable R. David Proctor on 10/24/2024. (KAM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ROSIE LEE MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. DONTAE GORDON, et al., Defendants. } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 2:24-cv-00456-RDP-JHE ORDER This case is before the court on (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney (Doc. # 31) and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appearance requesting to speak with the Honorable Myron H. Thompson1 (Doc. # 32). Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney, “[a] plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F. 3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). It is within the court’s discretion to appoint counsel for civil plaintiffs unable to retain an attorney on their own, but appointment is appropriate “only in exceptional circumstances.” Id. These exceptional circumstances exist “where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has not explained why such exceptional circumstances exist here. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney (Doc. # 31) is DENIED. Plaintiff is encouraged to seek counsel to represent her in this matter, but otherwise SHALL proceed with the prosecution of this case in the manner it was filed – pro se. The Motion requests a meeting with “Honorable Judge Myron Thomas.” Since the request is for a meeting with a Judge, the court assumes Plaintiff simply misspelled Judge Thompson’s name. 1 Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Appearance requesting to speak with Judge Thompson, this case is no longer assigned to Judge Thompson and he and all other Judges in the Middle District of Alabama have recused themselves due to conflicts with the defendants Plaintiff named in her Amended Complaint. (Docs. # 17, 20). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appearance requesting to speak with Judge Thompson (Doc. # 32) is DENIED. If Plaintiff seeks a hearing to discuss matters directly related to THIS CASE, she SHALL file a motion for a hearing. However, the court REMINDS Plaintiff that on or before November 1, 2024, she SHALL file a LEGIBLE Amended Complaint in which she states her claims CLEARLY and in ONE DOCUMENT. DONE and ORDERED this October 24, 2024. _________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT 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?