From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pace v. Hurst Boiler Welding Co.

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
Nov 2, 2011
Civil Action 7:10-CV-116 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action 7:10-CV-116 (HL).

November 2, 2011


ORDER


This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 55).

Civil litigants do not have an absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is "a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner." Id. Here, there are not any exceptional circumstances that could possibly justify the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim is a typical Title VII claim. This case does not involve novel or complex issues as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner. Further, the Court has already determined that Plaintiff's claims lack merit.

Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 55) is denied.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pace v. Hurst Boiler Welding Co.

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
Nov 2, 2011
Civil Action 7:10-CV-116 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Pace v. Hurst Boiler Welding Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE PACE, Plaintiff, v. HURST BOILER WELDING CO., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division

Date published: Nov 2, 2011

Citations

Civil Action 7:10-CV-116 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2011)