HILL v. TODD et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying as moot 15 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and denying 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE AMELIA G HELMICK on 1/28/2025. (mlb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JAHMOL HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sgt. CRYSTAL TODD, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 5:24-cv-191-MTT-AGH

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s fifth motion for appointment of counsel
(ECF No. 15).1 Plaintiff states he needs counsel because he is “not fully competent”
to handle his case; he has no family in Georgia “to serve [his] paperwork[,]” he
“know[s] nothing about procedure[,]” and he does not have access to a law library.
Pl.’s 5th Mot. to Appoint Couns., ECF No. 15-1.
A district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
afford counsel.” 2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

There is, however, “no absolute

constitutional right to the appointment of counsel” in a § 1983 lawsuit. Poole v.
Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Appointment of counsel is “instead

The motion has been docketed both as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15). To the extent that Plaintiff requests to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, the motion is DENIED as moot. The Court already granted Plaintiff’s
previous motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3, 14).
1

The statute, however, does not provide any funding to pay attorneys for their representation or
authorize courts to compel attorneys to represent an indigent party in a civil case. See Mallard v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); Taylor v. Pekerol, 760 F. App’x 647, 651
(11th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted) (stating that a district court has no “inherent power” to compel
counsel to represent a civil litigant and § 1915 provides no such authority).
2

a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts
and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained
practitioner.”

Id.

In determining whether a case presents extraordinary

circumstances, the Court considers
(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff is
capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) whether the plaintiff is in
a position to adequately investigate the case; (4) whether the evidence
“will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill
in the presentation of evidence and in cross examination”; and (5)
whether the appointment of counsel would be of service to the parties
and the court “by sharpening the issues in the case, shaping the
examination of witnesses, and thus shortening the trial and assisting in
a just determination.” The District Court may also inquire into
whether the plaintiff has made any effort to secure private counsel.
DeJesus v. Lewis, 14 F.4th 1182, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion and—after applying the factors set
forth above—concludes that appointed counsel is not justified. Plaintiff’s case is not
complex. Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to litigate his case, including filing
pleadings and numerous motions sufficiently setting out his contentions. At this
early stage in the litigation, it is impossible to know if there will be a trial and, if so,
what evidence would be presented and whether counsel would be necessary to assist
the parties and the Court at trial. Plaintiff’s concern regarding service of process is
understandable but unjustified because he is proceeding in forma pauperis and,
therefore, should service on any defendant be necessary following the Court’s initial
review required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court will handle perfecting service.
In short, Plaintiff, “like any other litigant[], undoubtedly would [be] helped by the
2

assistance of a lawyer, but [his] case is not so unusual” that appointed counsel is
necessary.

Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointed counsel (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
As this is Plaintiff’s fifth motion to appoint counsel, the Court reiterates that,
on its own motion, the Court 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 his rights. It is not apparent that court-appointed counsel is required
at this point and Plaintiff need not file additional motions to appoint counsel.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of January, 2025.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3