Ponde v. Owens et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 10/27/2014. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

JEFFERY PONDE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 7:14-CV-28 (HL)

TERRY BROWN, ET AL.,
Defendant.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff’s motion is denied for the following reasons.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court “may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel.” In the context of a lawsuit filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, there is “no absolute constitutional right to the
appointment of counsel.” Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.3d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir.
1987). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional
circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982). When deciding
whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court considers a number of
factors, including whether the facts and legal issues presented “are so novel or
complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983
F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1983). As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, the “key 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.” Id.
Here Plaintiff seeks appointment of representation because he is a lay
person unfamiliar with the law. (Doc. 27, ¶ 2). He asserts that an attorney is
better suited to file depositions and interrogatories and to conduct an evidentiary
hearing. (Doc. 27, ¶ 3). Plaintiff concludes that appointing an attorney to assist
him in pursuing his claims to trial will “better facilitate the courts [sic] economical
and judicial times [sic] and resources.” (Doc. 27, ¶ 4).
While appointing an attorney to represent Plaintiff may indeed prove more
efficient, the desire for expediency fails to meet the requirement that Plaintiff first
demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.
The facts of this case are not complex, and Plaintiff up to this point has been able
to articulate the substance of his claims. He has demonstrated his ability to
present the basic elements of his case, and there is no evidence of any
impediment to him continuing to pursue his claims pro se. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2014.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
aks
2