Opinion
NO. 5:06-CV-275 (CAR), PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
April 18, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff herein has requested this court to provide legal representation for him in the above-captioned proceeding. Tab #33. This is the plaintiff's second such motion, the first having been denied as premature in an order dated August 17, 2006. Tab #6. As made clear in the court's August 17th Order, generally speaking, no right to counsel exists in § 1983 actions. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975); Meckdeci v. Merrell National Laboratories, 711 F.2d 1510, 1522 n. 19 (11th Cir. 1983). It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982); Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982).
In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the court typically considers, among other factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and the complexity of the issues presented. See Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). Applying the standards set forth in Ulmer, supra, it appears that at the present time, the essential facts and legal doctrines in this case are ascertainable by the plaintiff without the assistance of court-appointed legal counsel and that the existence of exceptional circumstances has not been shown by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is again reminded that if and when it becomes apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to his rights, the court on its own motion will consider assisting plaintiff in securing legal counsel.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for appointment of legal counsel (Tab #33) is DENIED at this time.
SO ORDERED.