BEY v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

M.D. Georgia

BEY v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DecidedMay 25, 2022

Docket5:19-cv-00236

StatusUnknown

This text of BEY v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (BEY v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) 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

BEY v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

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

YUSUFU KUUMBA BEY, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-236 (MTT) ) GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends denying Plaintiff Yusufu Kuumba Bey’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 104). Doc. 107. Bey has not objected, so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error. After review, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 107) is adopted and made the order of the Court. Accordingly, Bey’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 104) is DENIED. Bey has also moved for the appointment of counsel. Doc. 112. Bey states that he has limited knowledge of the law and that an attorney would be able to properly present evidence. Id. at 1. However, “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat. Labs., 711 F.2d 1510, 1522 n.19 (11th Cir. 1983)). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, courts consider, among other factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). Here, only Bey’s RLUIPA claim is left to be resolved, and the issues before the

Court do not appear complex. Moreover, Bey has shown that he can make competent arguments, and he has demonstrated that he understands what he must prove to prevail on his claim. See Doc. 92 at 9-10. Accordingly, Bey’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 112) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

YUSUFU KUUMBA BEY, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-236 (MTT) ) GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends denying Plaintiff Yusufu Kuumba Bey’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 104). Doc. 107. Bey has not objected, so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error. After review, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 107) is adopted and made the order of the Court. Accordingly, Bey’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 104) is DENIED. Bey has also moved for the appointment of counsel. Doc. 112. Bey states that he has limited knowledge of the law and that an attorney would be able to properly present evidence. Id. at 1. However, “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat. Labs., 711 F.2d 1510, 1522 n.19 (11th Cir. 1983)). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, courts consider, among other factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). Here, only Bey’s RLUIPA claim is left to be resolved, and the issues before the

Court do not appear complex. Moreover, Bey has shown that he can make competent arguments, and he has demonstrated that he understands what he must prove to prevail on his claim. See Doc. 92 at 9-10. Accordingly, Bey’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 112) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BEY v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-georgia-department-of-corrections-gamd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack