Smith v. HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Extending Discovery. discovery is to be completed by September 3, 2013. Dispositive and Daubert motions are due by October 3, 2013. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 7/3/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DARLENE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-62 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc.
23). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel.” However, “[a]ppointment of counsel in
a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir.
1985) (citation omitted); see also Hunter v. Dept. of Air Force Agency, 846 F.2d 1314,
1317 (11th Cir.1988) (stating that decision is within discretion of district court). Rather,
“[i]t is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” Wahl, 773 F.2d at
1174. In exercising its discretion regarding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent
party, “the district court typically considers, among other factors, the merits of the
plaintiff’s claim and whether the claim is factually or legally so complex as to warrant the
assistance of counsel.” Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).
Here, the Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because her representation
requests after the withdrawal of her former counsel have been unsuccessful. However,
appointment of counsel is unwarranted because the claims are neither factually nor

legally complex. See Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174 (finding that exceptional circumstances
were not established where essential facts and legal doctrines were ascertainable
without assistance of court-appointed counsel). Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has
not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the
appointment of counsel, the motion is DENIED.
In light of the Plaintiff’s difficulty obtaining new counsel, however, the Defendants
have consented to the extension of discovery. Accordingly, discovery is to be
completed by September 3, 2013. Dispositive and Daubert motions are due by
October 3, 2013.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of July, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT