Galloway v. Nesbit
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion 7 Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 10/14/2020. (cb)
Case: 3:20-cv-00170-DAS Doc #: 20 Filed: 10/14/20 1 of 1 PageID #: 113
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION  APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Pro se plaintiff requests appointment of counsel to represent him in this action brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. There is no automatic right to counsel in a § 1983 case. Wright v. Dallas County
Sheriff’s Department, 660 F.2d 623, 625-26 (5th Cir. 1981); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.
1987). Unless there are “exceptional circumstances,” a district court is not required to appoint
counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in a civil action. Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir.
1982). See also, Feist v. Jefferson County Commissioners Court, 778 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1985).
In this case, however, the court has yet to conduct a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d
179 (5th Cir. 1985), at which the plaintiff will have an opportunity to expound upon his claims. The
instant motion is premature, and it should be denied. After observing plaintiff at a Spears hearing, if
the court determines that counsel should be appointed it will do so sua sponte. It is, therefore,
That plaintiff’s motion  for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
This, the 14th day of October, 2020.
/s/ David A. Sanders
DAVID A. SANDERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?