Johnson v. Opelika Police Department et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 2/3/2010. (br, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION _____________________________ L E O N A R D O JOHNSON P l a in tif f , v. O P E L IK A POLICE DEPT., et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________ * * * * * 3:10-CV-50-ID (WO) O R D E R ON MOTION P e n d in g 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 a p p o in ted counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), a court retains broad discretion in m a k in g this decision. See Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11 th Cir.1999). H e re , the court finds from its review of the complaint that Plaintiff is able to a d e q u a tely articulate the facts and grounds for relief in the instant matter without notable d if f ic u lty. Furthermore, the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint is not of undue c o m p le x ity and that he has not shown that there are exceptional circumstances justifying a p p o in tm e n t of counsel. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11 th Cir. 1993); Dean v. B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11 th Cir. 1992); see also Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (1 1 th Cir. 1990). Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, the court shall deny Plaintiff's re q u e st for appointment of counsel at this time. The request may be reconsidered if warranted b y further developments in this case. A c c o r d in g ly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 8), is D E N IE D . D o n e , this 3 r d day of February 2010. /s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE 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?