Coffey v. State of Georgia

Filing 67

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION MICHAEL RAY COFFEY, a.k.a RANDALL CHARLES SANDERS (GDC ID: 1000090655), : : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff, vs. STEPHANIE DANIELS, et. al. Defendants. CASE NO: 5:12-CV-384-CAR-MSH 42 U.S.C. § 1983 _________________________________ ORDER 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. DISCUSSION 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.” Poole v. 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 summarily denied. 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 2

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?