WHITE vs. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Filing 42

ORDER denying 36 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot 36 Motion for Continuance. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 7/22/13 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
ROBIN DONNA WHITE and
ROBERT W. WHITE,

:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
:
RESOURCES, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________ :

1:11-CV-115 (WLS)

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance and
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 36). As Plaintiffs have filed their More Definite
Statement within the time period set by the Court, the Motion for Continuance is
DENIED AS MOOT.
With respect to the Motion to Appoint Counsel, generally speaking, no right to
counsel exists in civil actions. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985);
Mekdeci v. Merrel Nat’l Lab., 711 F.2d 1510, 1522 n.19 (11th Cir. 1983). Appointment of
counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes,
692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982). In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided,
the Court typically considers, among other factors, the merits of the plaintiff’s claim and
the complexity of the issues presented. See Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir.
1989). Applying the standards set forth in Holt, it appears that at the present time, the
essential facts and legal doctrines in this case are ascertainable by Plaintiffs without the
assistance of court-appointed legal counsel and that the existence of exceptional

1

circumstances has not been shown by Plaintiffs. The Court on its own motion will
consider assisting Plaintiffs in securing legal counsel if and when it becomes apparent
that legal assistance is required. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel
(Doc. 36) is DENIED at this time.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of July 2013.

/s/ W. Louis Sands__________________
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2