BRINSON v. Abbott Laboratories Inc

Filing 26

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 1/22/2013. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION RONALD A. BRINSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 7:12-cv-47 (HL) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant. ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff Ronald A. Brinson’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 15). In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that his case warrants the appointment of an attorney because of the sophisticated nature of Defendant Abbott Laboratories. “A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). It is within the court’s discretion to appoint counsel for civil plaintiffs unable to retain an attorney on their own, but appointment is appropriate “only in exceptional circumstances.” Id. These exceptional circumstances exist “where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). The Court requested and received the pro bono services of attorney C. Andrew Childers who investigated the merits of Plaintiff’s case and who thereafter declined to represent Plaintiff. Based on this investigation, the Court will not appoint counsel for Plaintiff. With Mr. Childers’ investigation concluded, the case will proceed. Discovery will be reopened so that the parties may conduct any discovery necessary. Discovery will now end on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. All motions to join other parties or otherwise amend the pleadings shall be filed on Thursday, April 4, or thirty days after the expiration of discovery. Dispositive motions will be due on Friday, April 19, 2013, or forty-five days after the expiration of discovery. SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of January, 2013. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE ebr  

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?