BALL v. ALLEN

M.D. Georgia

BALL v. ALLEN

DecidedNovember 22, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-00314

StatusUnknown

This text of BALL v. ALLEN (BALL v. ALLEN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BALL v. ALLEN, (M.D. Ga. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

TRAVIS BALL, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : NO. 5:24-cv-314-CAR-CHW : Lt. KEITH ALLEN; : et al., : : : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Defendants. : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge _________________________________:

ORDER Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 5. As this is Plaintiff’s first request for counsel, the Court advises Plaintiff that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).1

1 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute does not, however, provide any funding to pay attorneys for their representation or authorize courts to compel attorneys to represent an indigent party in a civil case. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and

that the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. ECF No. 5. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, there is no need for Plaintiff to file additional requests for counsel.

SO ORDERED, this 20th day of November, 2024.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

TRAVIS BALL, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : NO. 5:24-cv-314-CAR-CHW : Lt. KEITH ALLEN; : et al., : : : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Defendants. : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge _________________________________:

ORDER Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 5. As this is Plaintiff’s first request for counsel, the Court advises Plaintiff that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).1

1 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute does not, however, provide any funding to pay attorneys for their representation or authorize courts to compel attorneys to represent an indigent party in a civil case. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and

that the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. ECF No. 5. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, there is no need for Plaintiff to file additional requests for counsel.

SO ORDERED, this 20th day of November, 2024.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BALL v. ALLEN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-allen-gamd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack