CARTER v. MARION et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 54 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 10/2/2013. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
RAYMOND CARTER JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-76 (HL)
v.
JOHN MARION, BOBBY GRUNDY,
TIMOTHY GLASSNER, and ROBERT
ENGLEMANN,
Defendants.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. 54).
Plaintiff’s case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is scheduled for trial
during the January 2014 trial term. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
Civil litigants do not have an absolute constitutional right to the
appointment of counsel. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987).
Instead, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is “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. To
determine whether a case is exceptional, the key inquiry is “whether the pro se
litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position to the
court. Where the facts and issues are simple, he or she usually will not need
such help.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993). In other words,

“[t]he existence of [exceptional] circumstances will turn on the quality of two basic
factors - the type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of the individual
bringing it.” Williams v. Grant, 639 F.Supp.2d 1377, 1378 (S.D.Ga. 2009) (citation
omitted).
Here, there are no exceptional circumstances that justify the appointment
of counsel for Plaintiff. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, this case is not
particularly complex. The allegations are straightforward. Plaintiff's claim is a
typical excessive force claim. This case does not involve novel or complex issues
as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner. The fact Plaintiff is
incarcerated does not entitle him to counsel. If Plaintiff’s situation constituted an
exceptional circumstance, nearly all pro se litigants could satisfy the high burden
that warrants the appointment of counsel.
The Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 45) is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of October, 2013.
s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
mbh

2