Vasile v. Warden Barrow

Full title: FLORESCU VASILE, Plaintiff v. Warden DONALD BARROW, Defendant

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

Date published: Aug 1, 2005

7: 04-CV-46 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2005)

Opinion

7: 04-CV-46 (HL).

August 1, 2005

ORDER

RICHARD HODGE, Magistrate Judge

Presently pending in this § 1983 action is the plaintiff's motion seeking the court appointment of both counsel and an interpreter, based on plaintiff's alleged inability to adequately communicate with the court using English. The plaintiff, who states through the help of fellow inmate(s) that he is Romanian, alleges that although he can speak in "broken English", he cannot write in English. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that he suffers from a mental disability that will prevent him from adequately addressing this litigation.

Plaintiff apparently continues to rely on the help of a third party in drafting pleadings herein. In deciding 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. See Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). Although the court is sympathetic to the plaintiff's situation, the court notes that the plaintiff initiated this lawsuit with full knowledge of his abilities. Plaintiff apparently continues to rely on the help of a third party in drafting pleadings herein. In deciding 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. See Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). It appears that at the present time, the essential facts and legal doctrines in this case are ascertainable by the plaintiff without the assistance of court-appointed legal counsel and that the existence of exceptional circumstances has not been shown by the plaintiff. Thus far, the plaintiff has clearly set forth his claims and any language barrier or mental disability has not hindered the plaintiff in presenting his relatively straightforward claims. 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.

There is no basis for the appointment of either counsel or an interpreter in this civil action. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.