Alvin v. Veal et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 45 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 1/29/19. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ALJANON ALVIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CPL VEAL OF SCMPD,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By jburrell at 4:13 pm, Jan 29, 2019

CV417-206

)
)
)
)

ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Aljanon Alvin seeks reconsideration of the Court’s
denial of his request for the appointment of counsel. Doc. 45. He brings
the same arguments previously evaluated, and rejected, in the Court’s
Order denying appointment of counsel. Compare docs. 29 & 45.
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration may be granted
based only on newly-discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of
law or fact. In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999). Rule
59(e) motions may not be used to “relitigate old matters, raise argument
or present evidence that should have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763
(11th Cir. 2005).

Alvin’s “motion relie[s] on no newly-discovered evidence and
demonstrate[s] no manifest error of law or fact” in the court’s order. The
Bedtow Grp. II, LLC v. Ungerleider, 684 F. App’x 839, 843 (11th Cir.
2017). As he has been told before, “[t]here is no entitlement to appointed
counsel in a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Doc. 29 at
1 (citing Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990)). Indeed,
“[c]ourt-appointed counsel in civil cases is warranted only in ‘exceptional
cases.’” Id. (citing Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996)).
Yet Alvin points to no exceptional circumstances warranting the
appointment of counsel at public expense. See doc. 45.
Alvin again complains that an attorney would be better able to
litigate his case and procure/examine expert testimony, and cites an outof-circuit case for the argument that the Court “should make every
attempt to obtain counsel” on his behalf.

Id. at 2.

But Alvin

misunderstands: in this Circuit, the relevant question “is whether [he]
needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position to the
court,” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993), not whether an
attorney might be useful for nuanced argument or case development. And
as explained in the Court’s prior order,
2

Here, Alvin has had no difficulty in explaining the facts of his case:
he contends that he was subjected to excessive force. Doc. 1 at 3
(Complaint); doc. 7 at 3 (Amended Complaint); see also doc. 21 at 1
(“Statement of the Case”). Because this case is not so legally or
factually complex as to prevent Alvin from presenting “the essential
merits of his position” to the Court, his motion to appoint counsel is
DENIED.
Doc. 29 at 2. Alvin’s motion for reconsideration, doc. 45, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this

29

day of January, 2019.

3