SINCLAIR v. MCGEE et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Leave to Appeal; denying 35 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by U.S. District Judge W LOUIS SANDS on 6/18/14 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
LEE SWEENEY SINCLAIR,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. MCGEE et al,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:13-cv-63 (WLS)

ORDER
Plaintiff Lee Swenny Sinclair apparently moves the Court to certify an interlocutory appeal and to appoint counsel. (Doc. 35.) On the former request, a district court
may certify an order for an interlocutory appeal if the court is “of the opinion that such
order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C § 1292(b). Sinclair seeks to
appeal the Court’s dismissal of a number of his claims. The Court declines to certify an
interlocutory appeal because his appeal does not involve a controlling question of law
as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. Nor would an appeal
materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation.
The Court also declines to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to
counsel in civil cases. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). The Court
should appoint counsel “only in exceptional circumstances, ‘such as where the facts and
legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.’” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts consider a number of
factors to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, including the case’s com-

1

plexity, the litigant’s capability, whether the litigant is in a position to adequately investigate his case, and whether the case requires some skill in presenting evidence and in
cross-examination. Collins v. Homestead Corr. Inst., 352 F. App’x 848, 849 (11th Cir. 2011).
At this stage, there is nothing particularly unusual or complex about Sinclair’s claims.
Because most of the claims involve Sinclair’s personal knowledge, he is in a good position to investigate his own claims. The Court will on later motion reconsider the request
if a change in circumstances supports the same.
The motion (Doc. 35) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this

18th _ day of June, 2014.
_/s/ W. Louis Sands ________
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2