From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Christian v. Holt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Jan 6, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-351 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-351 (MTT)

01-06-2012

CHARLES FREEMAN CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES HOLT, et. al, Defendants.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 64). The Plaintiff injured his left leg and claims prison personnel failed to treat his injury. The Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Janet Willis took an X-ray of his leg and Defendant Major Charles Holt ignored requests to see his medical records.

Although Janet Willis is named as a defendant in the Complaint, she has not been served, and thus she is not a party to this action.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), "the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." However, "[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right." Wahl v. Mclver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Hunter v. Dept. of Air Force Agency, 846 F.2d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir.1988) (stating that decision is within discretion of district court). Rather, "it is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances." Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174. In exercising its discretion regarding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent party, "the district court typically considers, among other factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and whether the claim is factually or legally so complex as to warrant the assistance of counsel." Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).

Here, the Plaintiff asserts that he should be appointed counsel because he is "not being taken serious[ly]" as a pro se plaintiff. (Doc. 64, at 1). Even assuming the Plaintiff's claims have merit, appointment of counsel is unwarranted because the claims are neither factually nor legally complex. See Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174 (finding that exceptional circumstances were not established where essential facts and legal doctrines were ascertainable without assistance of court-appointed counsel). Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the appointment of counsel, the Motion is DENIED.

_______________________

MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Christian v. Holt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Jan 6, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-351 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2012)
Case details for

Christian v. Holt

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES FREEMAN CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES HOLT, et. al, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Date published: Jan 6, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-351 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2012)