MAJOR v. TOOLE et al

Filing 93

ORDER DENYING 92 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/26/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TROY MAJOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Lieutenant JOHNSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-483 (MTT)

ORDER
Plaintiff Troy Major moves for the appointment of counsel. Doc. 92. This is the
third time Major has filed such a motion. Docs. 9; 64. He first moved for the
appointment of counsel prior to his initial screening, and that motion was denied by U.S.
Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles, who previously presided over this case. Docs. 9;18 at
2. In denying that order, the Magistrate Judge found the facts stated in Major’s
complaint to not be complicated and that the law governing Major’s claims was neither
novel nor complex. Id. The Magistrate Judge made similar findings in denying Major’s
second motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 64). Doc. 67 at 3-4.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Nevertheless, “[a]ppointment of
counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169,
1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Rather, “it is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional
circumstances.” Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court

considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and the complexity of the
issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).
Major argues the complexity of his case requires the appointment of counsel.
Doc. 92 at 1-2. Major initially stated an ordinary § 1983 claim, albeit against 24
defendants. See generally Doc. 1. This is not the sort of exceptional circumstance that
would justify the appointment of counsel. See Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174. And now, only
his sexual assault and retaliation claims against Defendant Javaka Johnson remain,
rendering his case even less complex than it previously was. Major also argues
counsel should be appointed for various other reasons, including: (1) because he is
unable to obtain private counsel on his own; (2) he has limited access to the law library;
(3) he has a conflict of interest with the law librarian, who he is suing in another action;
(4) he suffers from mental health issues; and (5) that the case will involve “conflicting
testimony.” Id. Despite his stated reasons why he cannot represent himself, Major has
shown an ability to do so throughout the pendency of this case by arguing the facts and
relevant law. And the Court finds that the essential facts and legal doctrines in this case
are ascertainable to him without the assistance of an attorney. In sum, nothing in
Major’s current motion inclines the Court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s denials
of Major’s two previous motions.
Accordingly, Major’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 92) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of April, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2