HILL v. HOUSTON COUNTY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Appointment of Counsel; adopting 12 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the following parties are DISMISSED without prejudice: Mincey, Franklin, Waters, and the Houston County Judicial Circuit. Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Talton and Hartwig may proceed. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 5/23/2018. (chc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ESHA ROBERT HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON COUNTY JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:17-cv-00481-TES-MSH

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order and
Recommendation [Doc. 12]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mincey, Franklin, Waters, and the Houston County
Judicial Circuit. He also recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment excessive bail claims against Defendants Hartwig, Mincey, Talton, and
Franklin, and his malicious prosecution claims against Defendants Hartwig and Mincey.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s remaining Fourteenth
Amendment due process claim against Defendants Talton 1 and Hartwig, which arises
from their alleged requirement of cash-only bond, be allowed to proceed.

Although the Order and Recommendation inadvertently states that Plaintiff “has plausibly alleged a
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Sheriff Franklin,” [Doc. 12 at 5] (emphasis added), the

1

Having thoroughly reviewed the recommendations, and having received no
objections from the Parties, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Order and Recommendation
[Doc. 12] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he “is indigent and would like to be
appointed counsel by the court being that I am pursuing a civil matter against county
elected officials who have the means to produce funds to hire an attorney for their defence
[sic].” [Doc. 1 at 7]. The Court construes this statement as a motion for the appointment
of counsel, which is DENIED.
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action. See Bass v.
Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). Instead, the appointment of counsel in a civil
case is a privilege that is justified only in exceptional circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes, 692
F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982). In deciding whether to appoint legal counsel, the Court should
consider, among other things, the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and the complexity of the
issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 682 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).
In this case, Plaintiff’s remaining claims are neither complex nor novel, and
Plaintiff does not present other exceptional circumstances that would warrant the
appointment of counsel. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the
appointment of counsel [Doc. 1]. If, however, it becomes apparent that exceptional

claim is intended to proceed against Sheriff Talton. See [Doc. 12 at 6 (“Thus, Plaintiff may proceed with this
claim against Defendant Talton and Hartwig.”)].

circumstances justify the appointment of counsel in this case, the Court will entertain a
renewed motion.
Having thoroughly reviewed the recommendations, the Court ADOPTS the
Order and Recommendation [Doc. 12] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
Accordingly, the following parties are DISMISSED without prejudice: Mincey,
Franklin, Waters, and the Houston County Judicial Circuit. The only remaining claim is
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Talton and
Hartwig stemming from their alleged requirement that Plaintiff’s bond be paid in cash
only. Plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel [Doc. 1] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of May, 2018.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT