DAVIS v. BANTA et al
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel as premature. Ordered by U.S. Mag. Judge Charles H. Weigle on 6/26/12. (mgb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BARCLAY BANTA, et al.,
NO. 5:12-CV-146 (MTT)
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is a Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Patrick Davis. Doc. 12.
For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
As an initial matter, because Plaintiff’s Motion was filed prior to service upon and/or the
filing of responsive pleadings by any Defendant, it is viewed by the Court as premature.
Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that 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
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of June, 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?