Opinion
5:10-cv-112 (HL).
March 29, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
Plaintiff Michael Garrett ("Garrett") filed a pro se complaint against his employers. His complaint alleges that the Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Garrett requests that the Court appoint counsel on his behalf because he does not believe he can adequately represent himself. He has contacted three law firms and all have declined to represent him.
The general rule is that there is no entitlement to appointed counsel in a civil rights case. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). The decision of whether to provide counsel lies within the discretion of the district court. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The district court should exercise its discretion by appointing counsel only when there are "exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner." Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).
The Court finds that Garrett has not shown exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel. At this juncture, it seems that Garrett has set forth a fairly straightforward case of race discrimination. He has adequately articulated the facts and legal issues that govern his claim. Accordingly, the Court denies Garrett's Motion to Appoint Counsel. If at a later date it becomes apparent that his case presents complex legal or factual issues then the Court will entertain another motion for the appointment of counsel.
SO ORDERED.