BATTLE v. HANCOCK STATE PRISON

M.D. Georgia

BATTLE v. HANCOCK STATE PRISON

District Court, M.D. Georgia·Decided January 4, 2022·No. 5:20-cv-00063·Unknown

Opinion

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

DETRICH BATTLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-63 (MTT) ) HANCOCK STATE PRISON, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

The Court previously granted Plaintiff Detrich Battle’s application (Doc. 62) to appeal in forma pauperis. Doc. 63. Battle now moves for appointment of counsel to represent him on that appeal. Doc. 58. For the following reasons, Battle’s motion is DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Nevertheless, “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Rather, “it 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). Battle’s one page motion falls well short of demonstrating exceptional circumstances. While Battle lists a litany of physical and mental ailments, the Court notes those ailments did not preclude Battle from adequately representing himself at the trial level of his litigation. The Court is confident Battle can continue to do so on appeal. Moreover, the issue on appeal—whether Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Title V retaliation claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity—is not of sufficient complexity to warrant appointment of counsel. For those reasons, Battle’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 58) is DENIED.1

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of January, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 Battle subsequently asked the Court to explain why his motion to appoint counsel was terminated. Doc. 64. As the Court has now ruled on Battle’s motion to appoint counsel, Battle’s “motion for an explanation” is DISMISSED as moot.

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

DETRICH BATTLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-63 (MTT) ) HANCOCK STATE PRISON, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

The Court previously granted Plaintiff Detrich Battle’s application (Doc. 62) to appeal in forma pauperis. Doc. 63. Battle now moves for appointment of counsel to represent him on that appeal. Doc. 58. For the following reasons, Battle’s motion is DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Nevertheless, “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Rather, “it 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). Battle’s one page motion falls well short of demonstrating exceptional circumstances. While Battle lists a litany of physical and mental ailments, the Court notes those ailments did not preclude Battle from adequately representing himself at the trial level of his litigation. The Court is confident Battle can continue to do so on appeal. Moreover, the issue on appeal—whether Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Title V retaliation claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity—is not of sufficient complexity to warrant appointment of counsel. For those reasons, Battle’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 58) is DENIED.1

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of January, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 Battle subsequently asked the Court to explain why his motion to appoint counsel was terminated. Doc. 64. As the Court has now ruled on Battle’s motion to appoint counsel, Battle’s “motion for an explanation” is DISMISSED as moot.

BATTLE v. HANCOCK STATE PRISON, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

BATTLE v. HANCOCK STATE PRISON (BATTLE v. HANCOCK STATE PRISON) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related