Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-89 (MTT).
July 20, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 23) (the "Motion"). For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
There is no absolute constitutional entitlement to appointed counsel in prisoner civil rights cases. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993). Rather, the decision of whether to appoint counsel in civil cases is left to the district court's discretion. Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996). The court should only appoint counsel for a civil litigant in "exceptional circumstances." Id. To determine if exceptional circumstances exist, a court should consider a variety of factors such as "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's claims are not so factually or legally complex as to warrant the assistance of counsel. The Plaintiff's complaint, which alleges Fourth Amendment claims for illegal search and seizure and malicious prosecution, as well as a due process claim, raises relatively routine issues involving the immunity of state actors from civil liability. The main issues are whether the Defendants acted pursuant to a municipal custom or policy when they allegedly violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. These issues do not constitute the exceptional circumstances required for a court to appoint counsel in a civil case.
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 23) is denied.
SO ORDERED.