Opinion
CASE NO: 5:12-CV-384-CAR-MSH
04-19-2013
MICHAEL RAY COFFEY, a.k.a RANDALL CHARLES SANDERS (GDC ID: 1000090655), Plaintiff, v. STEPHANIE DANIELS, et. al. Defendants.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
ORDER
Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 39, 64) and motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 65) to file a response to Defendant Moss' motion to dismiss. As explained below, Plaintiff's motions to appoint are denied and his motion for an extension of time is granted.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has two motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 39, 64) currently pending. Five previously filed motions to appoint were denied on January 10, 2013. (Order 1, Jan. 10, 2013, ECF No. 36.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the district court "may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." However, there is "no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel." Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982). In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court should consider, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff's claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 682 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. Plaintiff therefore has not alleged the exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel under Holt. The Court on its own motion will consider assisting Plaintiff in securing legal counsel if and when it becomes apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff's rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED at this time. Any further motions for appointment of counsel by Plaintiff in this case will be summarily denied.
Plaintiff also seeks additional time to file a response to Defendant Moss' motion to dismiss. Such request is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty (30) days within which to file his response to Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE