Opinion
CASE NO. 4:12-CV-330-CDL-MSH
07-24-2013
DOUGLAS LEE PARRIS, Plaintiff, v. Officer CHARLES WEAVER, Defendant.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
ORDER
Plaintiff currently has pending three motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 16, 24, 39). Alternatively, Plaintiff requests a "90-day extension" in order to obtain an attorney. (Mot. for Appointment of Counsel or a 90-day Extension 1, ECF No. 39). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are denied. However, the Court shall extend the response time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment by fourteen (14) days to provide Plaintiff with some additional time to respond and/or seek counsel.
DISCUSSION
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. Plaintiff shall have until August 26, 2013, to file his response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32).
Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE