Opinion
5:19-CV-161 (TES)
08-26-2020
JOHN STEPHEN RAVAN, Plaintiff, v. ALTHEA ADDISON JACKSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER and RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel, Motions seeking injunctive relief, Motion for a Conference, and Motion for an Extension of Time. (Docs. 119, 126, 127, 128, 135, 147).
ORDER
Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 119 , 135)
On July 17, 2020 and August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed Motions to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 119, 135). Generally speaking, no right to counsel exists in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. McCall v. Cook, 495 F. App'x 29, 31 (11th Cir. 2012); Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174.
To decide whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court typically considers, among other factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). Applying the standards set forth in Holt, it presently appears that the essential facts and legal doctrines in this case are ascertainable by Plaintiff without the assistance of court-appointed legal counsel, and that Plaintiff has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances. 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 his rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 119, 135) are DENIED. Motion for Conference (Doc. 127)
On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Video or Phone Conference. (Doc. 127). In this motion, Plaintiff requested a conference with the Court and Defendants before the Court rules on the pending summary judgment motion because Plaintiff has issues seeing and reading. Id. However, despite having such issues, Plaintiff was able to file three responses to the summary judgment motion. (Docs. 133, 136, 138). Further, Plaintiff has been litigating this case, prolifically, for over a year without the need for a conference. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Conference (Doc. 127) is DENIED. Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 147)
On August 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. 147). In this motion, Plaintiff requests a 30-day extension of an August 24, 2020 deadline. Id. As such, it appears that Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion. (See Doc. 115). However, the record now contains a total of three responses from Plaintiff regarding the summary judgment motion. (Docs. 133, 136, 138). As such, Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to respond to Defendants Freeman and Jackson's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's fourth Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response (Doc. 147) is hereby DENIED.
RECOMMENDATION
Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 126 , 128 , 147)
On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to order the Georgia Department of Corrections to provide Plaintiff with various materials. (Doc. 126). On the same day, Plaintiff filed a separate motion asking the Court for an injunction against the Georgia Department of Corrections, Warden Brooks Benton, Deputy Warden Betterson, Anderson of security, Glen of administration, ADA coordinator Ms. Worthen, unit manager Ms. Brown, counselor Ms. Williams, spectrum staff Ms. Lacount, Hunter, Phillips, Robertson, Lopez, and three unknown ladies in R.S.A.T. acting as counselors to "set right the wrongs of these people." (Doc. 128). On August 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to order the Georgia Department of Corrections, Warden Brooks Benton, Deputy Warden of Care and Treatment Betterson, Administration Glenn, Security Anderson, ADA coordinator Ms. Worthen, chief counselor Ms. Rivers, counselors Wallace, Williams, Townsend, and Captain Judkins to provide Plaintiff with various materials. (Doc. 147). As none of the persons or entities named in Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief are parties to this lawsuit, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Powell v. Owens, 2017 WL 3822983, at *1 (M.D. Ga. July 14, 2017) ("The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a non-party."). Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motions seeking injunctive relief (Docs. 126, 128, 147) be DENIED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to these recommendations, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The district judge shall make a de novo determination as to those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made; all other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed by the district judge for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, "[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice."
SO ORDERED and RECOMMENDED, this 26th day of August, 2020.
s/ THOMAS Q. LANGSTAFF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE