Felder v. Peavy et al
Filing
85
ORDER denying 84 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by U.S. Mag. Judge Charles H. Weigle on 3/22/12. (mgb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MARK PURCELL FELDER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JASON LAMBERTH, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
NO. 5:10-CV-402 (MTT)
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Purcell Felder’s second Motion to Appoint Counsel. Doc.
84. The Motion is DENIED. As Plaintiff has previously been advised (Doc. 13), there is generally
no right to appointed counsel in civil rights actions. See Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th
Cir. 1986); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). 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 should consider, among
other factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v.
Ford, 682 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).
In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that
the Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and that the
applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. As such, there is no present need to provide him
with legal counsel. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid
prejudice to the Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in
securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, no additional requests for counsel will be
necessary.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of March, 2012.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
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?