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, )

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