Opinion
Civil Case No. 7:09-cv-153 (HL).
October 18, 2011
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Continue (Doc. 34) and Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 32). For reasons stated below, the Court grants the Motion to Continue and denies the Motion to Appoint Counsel.
Plaintiff requests a continuance so that he has additional time to access legal materials and gather information for his case. The Court grants the Motion to Continue and allows Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file his own motion for summary judgment. Thus, Plaintiff's submission of a motion for summary judgment must be filed on or before Thursday, November 17, 2011. Should Plaintiff decide to respond to Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37), he has until Wednesday, November 2, 2011, which is twenty-one days from the date that the Defendants filed their motion, to file his response.
As for the Motion to Appoint Counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a necessity for appointed counsel in this litigation. Plaintiff has submitted evidence of attempts to find counsel independently, and the Court sympathizes with his difficulty in retaining a private attorney. However, difficulty retaining counsel does not justify a an attorney appointment by the Court. "Appointment of counsel in a civil case is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances such as the presence of facts and legal issues [which] are so novel or complex as to require the existence of a trained practitioner."Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff's case is not so complex or unusual that it warrants the appointment of counsel, and thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied.