Breedlove v. City of Atlanta

N.D. Georgia

Breedlove v. City of Atlanta

DecidedJuly 29, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-05277

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Breedlove v. City of Atlanta, (N.D. Ga. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

MISSIONARY G. A. BREEDLOVE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-05277-JPB CITY OF ATLANTA and LAND

BANK AUTHORITY,

Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Missionary G. A. Breedlove’s (“Breedlove”) Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Motion”). ECF No. 12. After due consideration of the Motion, the Court finds as follows: Breedlove asks the Court to appoint an attorney to represent her in this action because the attorney she sought to engage “has indicated that he is overwhelmed with cases[] and will not be able to represent [her].” Defendant City of Atlanta (the “City”) opposes Breedlove’s Motion on the grounds that the facts and legal issues in this case are not so complex as to warrant the appointment of counsel. It is well-settled that a “plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). “[A]ppointment of counsel . . . is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here, Breedlove has not demonstrated any of the grounds set forth in Dean. The unavailability of a specific attorney is not a sufficient reason to appoint counsel to represent her in this case. Accordingly, Breedlove’s Motion (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. The Court notes that Breedlove failed to respond to the City’s Motion to Dismiss by the deadline specified in the Court’s June 21, 2021 Order. Given that Breedlove’s Motion has now been resolved, the Court will allow Breedlove one last opportunity to respond to the City’s Motion to Dismiss. If Breedlove’s

response is not filed by August 16, 2021, the Court will deem the City’s Motion to Dismiss unopposed. SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2021. rN J QO CA J.\P: BOULEE United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

MISSIONARY G. A. BREEDLOVE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-05277-JPB CITY OF ATLANTA and LAND

BANK AUTHORITY,

Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Missionary G. A. Breedlove’s (“Breedlove”) Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Motion”). ECF No. 12. After due consideration of the Motion, the Court finds as follows: Breedlove asks the Court to appoint an attorney to represent her in this action because the attorney she sought to engage “has indicated that he is overwhelmed with cases[] and will not be able to represent [her].” Defendant City of Atlanta (the “City”) opposes Breedlove’s Motion on the grounds that the facts and legal issues in this case are not so complex as to warrant the appointment of counsel. It is well-settled that a “plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). “[A]ppointment of counsel . . . is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here, Breedlove has not demonstrated any of the grounds set forth in Dean. The unavailability of a specific attorney is not a sufficient reason to appoint counsel to represent her in this case. Accordingly, Breedlove’s Motion (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. The Court notes that Breedlove failed to respond to the City’s Motion to Dismiss by the deadline specified in the Court’s June 21, 2021 Order. Given that Breedlove’s Motion has now been resolved, the Court will allow Breedlove one last opportunity to respond to the City’s Motion to Dismiss. If Breedlove’s

response is not filed by August 16, 2021, the Court will deem the City’s Motion to Dismiss unopposed. SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2021. rN J QO CA J.\P: BOULEE United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Breedlove v. City of Atlanta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breedlove-v-city-of-atlanta-gand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack