Opinion
Civ. A. 23-00147-TFM-N
08-06-2024
STEVEN D. KING, AIS# 134091 Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KATHERINE P. NELSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are Plaintiff Steven D. King's Motions for Appointment of Attorney. (Docs. 13, 40). Plaintiff's motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for appropriate action. (Doc. 3). For the reasons stated below, and at this time, Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED.
In a § 1983 action, as in any civil action, “[a] plaintiff .. has no constitutional right to counsel.” McDaniels v. Lee, 405 Fed.Appx. 456, 457 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A court may, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999 “[I]n deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district court has broad discretion and should appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances.” Lamar v. Wells Fargo Bank, 597 Fed.Appx. 555, 557 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Bass, 170 F.3d at 1320). In Lamar, the Eleventh Circuit listed several factors that should be considered by the district court when determining whether exceptional circumstances exist: “(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) whether the indigent is in a position to adequately investigate the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of incidents the indigent witnessed herself.” 597 Fed.Appx. at 558.
Here, Plaintiff has not established that his case, factually or legally, is too complex for him to prosecute at this stage of litigation. The undersigned finds Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel. Therefore, in exercising its discretion, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions.
DONE and ORDERED.