Coffey v. State of Georgia
ORDER denying 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 64 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty (30) days within which to file his response to Defendant Moss' motion to dismiss. Ordered by US Mag Judge Stephen Hyles on 4/19/13. (AGH)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MICHAEL RAY COFFEY,
a.k.a RANDALL CHARLES
SANDERS (GDC ID: 1000090655),
STEPHANIE DANIELS, et. al.
CASE NO: 5:12-CV-384-CAR-MSH
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of
counsel (ECF Nos. 39, 64) and motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 65) to file a
response to Defendant Moss’ motion to dismiss. As explained below, Plaintiff’s motions
to appoint are denied and his motion for an extension of time is granted.
Plaintiff has two motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 39, 64) currently
pending. Five previously filed motions to appoint were denied on January 10, 2013.
(Order 1, Jan. 10, 2013, ECF No. 36.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the district court
“may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” However,
there is “no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel.”
Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). 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 Plaintiff’s claim and the complexity of the
issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 682 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and the
applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. Plaintiff therefore has not alleged the
exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel under Holt. The Court on its
own motion will consider assisting Plaintiff in securing legal counsel if and when it
becomes apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s
rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED at this
time. Any further motions for appointment of counsel by Plaintiff in this case will be
Plaintiff also seeks additional time to file a response to Defendant Moss’ motion to
dismiss. Such request is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty (30) days
within which to file his response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of April, 2013.
S/ Stephen Hyles
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?