Williams v. Holt

Full title: CHALMUS CURTIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. MAJOR HOLT, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Mar 20, 2007

NO. 5:06-CV-334 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2007)

Opinion

NO. 5:06-CV-334 (HL), PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

March 20, 2007

ORDER

CLAUDE HICKS JR., Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff CHALMUS CURTIS WILLIAMS herein has filed a letter-motion in which he requests an "indigent attorney" and subponas for various witnesses. Tab #22. The defendants have responded to the plaintiff's motion. Tab #24. On March 19, 2007, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk of Court in which he asked the Clerk to provide him with an attorney. Tab #25.

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY

Generally speaking, no right to counsel exists in § 1983 actions. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11^th Cir. 1985); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5^th Cir. 1975); Meckdeci v. Merrell National Laboratories, 711 F.2d 1510, 1522 n. 19 (11^th Cir. 1983). It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5^th Cir. 1982); Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5^th Cir. 1982); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5^th Cir. 1982).

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 (11^th Cir. 1989). Applying the standards set forth in Ulmer, supra, 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. 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 FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL (Tabs #22 and #25) are DENIED at this time.

REQUEST FOR SUBPONAS

Plaintiff WILLIAM's request for subponas is inappropriate at this time, and it is DENIED. If and when this matter goes to trial, plaintiff will be permitted to subponas witnesses in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

MOTION FOR TRIAL

The plaintiff's letter-motion also requests that the Clerk of Court set this matter for trial as soon as possible. Tab #22. This motion is DENIED. This case will be set down for trial, if a trial is necessary, only after completion of discovery and after consideration of pretrial motions.

MOTION TO AMEND

Plaintiff WILLIAMS has also filed a letter-motion to amend his complaint to add an additional defendant, DEPUTY FOGERTY. Tab #15. His motion was submitted prior to the filing of responsive pleadings. Accordingly, PURSUANT TO Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to serve defendant DEPUTY FOGERTY with copies of plaintiff's complaint as supplemented and amended.

SO ORDERED.