BURNS v. BRYANT

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: September 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

DAMION BURNS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 1:24-cv-154-LAG-ALS : ERIC BRYANT, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ :

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff claims that appointed counsel is necessary because he cannot afford counsel, the issues raised in his § 1983 Complaint have not previously been presented to a court, and those issues are meritorious. Id. A district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). There is, however, “no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel” in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Appointment of counsel is “instead a privilege that 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.” Id. In determining whether a case presents extraordinary circumstances, the Court considers: (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) whether the plaintiff is in a position to adequately investigate the case; (4) whether the evidence “will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross examination”; and (5) whether the appointment of counsel would be of

1 The statute, however, does not 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, 310 (1989) (holding that federal courts may not “make coercive appointments of counsel” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). service to the parties and the court “by sharpening the issues in the case, shaping the examination of witnesses, and thus shortening the trial and assisting in a just determination.” The District Court may also inquire into whether the plaintiff has made any effort to secure private counsel.

DeJesus v. Lewis, 14 F.4th 1182, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982)). The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion and—after applying the factors set forth above—concludes that appointed counsel is not justified. Despite Plaintiff’s claims otherwise, unsanitary conditions and alleged deliberate indifference to conditions of his confinement have frequently been presented to federal district courts, and he adequately presented his claims such that the Court ordered service on Defendants. (Docs. 8, at 5; 14, at 6). It thus appears to the Court that Plaintiff—at this time—has the ability to present his case to the Court. Should it subsequently become apparent that appointed counsel is necessary to protect Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in securing legal counsel at that time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 11th day of September, 2025.

s/ ALFREDA L. SHEPPARD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE