Opinion
5:22-cv-376-TES-CHW
08-26-2024
DARRION WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Warden JOSEPH POLITE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 BEFORE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
Pro se Plaintiff Darrion Williams again seeks the appointment of counsel to represent him concerning this case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. (Doc. 54). The Court has denied a previous request. (Doc. 38, 40). However, Plaintiff renews his request for court-appointed counsel now that a least one claim has survived summary judgment and a pre-trial conference has been scheduled. See (Docs. 48, 51, 52). As previously explained to Plaintiff, no right to counsel exists in a civil case. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be appointed, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff's claims and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).
In accordance with Holt, and upon a renewed review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, his claims present no novel or complex issues. and the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. Moreover, Plaintiff has, as a self-represented litigant, survived summary judgment as to one claim and has shown that he is capable of presenting the essential merits of his case in court. Simply because this case may proceed to trial, in and of itself, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance to warrant appointed counsel. As such, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 54) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED,