Dewayne Scott Cunningham v. Dr. Esbert

M.D. Alabama

Dewayne Scott Cunningham v. Dr. Esbert

DecidedDecember 10, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00199

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Dewayne Scott Cunningham v. Dr. Esbert, (M.D. Ala. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

DEWAYNE SCOTT CUNNINGHAM, ) AIS # 190108, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-199-WKW ) [WO] DR. ESBERT, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s handwritten Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. # 24.) A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)). Generally, appointment of counsel in a civil case is “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.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting Poole, 819 F.2d at 1028). Although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 12), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) says that “the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel” (emphasis added), the court has broad discretion in deciding whether appointment of counsel is appropriate. Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). As grounds for his motion, Plaintiff asks to have an attorney appointed “for lack of knowing what to do to keep going on with this 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Doc. #

24.) Upon review of the record, however, the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint are not novel or unduly complex, and it appears that Plaintiff is able to articulate facts and grounds for relief without notable difficulty. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not

presented any exceptional circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel at this time. Finally, an Initial Scheduling Order outlining how this action will proceed was issued in this case on December 3, 2025. (Doc. # 23.) Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel (Doc. # 24) is DENIED at this time. The court will reconsider this issue at a later date if warranted by the circumstances of this case. DONE this 10th day of December, 2025.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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 ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

DEWAYNE SCOTT CUNNINGHAM, ) AIS # 190108, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-199-WKW ) [WO] DR. ESBERT, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s handwritten Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. # 24.) A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)). Generally, appointment of counsel in a civil case is “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.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting Poole, 819 F.2d at 1028). Although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 12), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) says that “the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel” (emphasis added), the court has broad discretion in deciding whether appointment of counsel is appropriate. Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). As grounds for his motion, Plaintiff asks to have an attorney appointed “for lack of knowing what to do to keep going on with this 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Doc. #

24.) Upon review of the record, however, the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint are not novel or unduly complex, and it appears that Plaintiff is able to articulate facts and grounds for relief without notable difficulty. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not

presented any exceptional circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel at this time. Finally, an Initial Scheduling Order outlining how this action will proceed was issued in this case on December 3, 2025. (Doc. # 23.) Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel (Doc. # 24) is DENIED at this time. The court will reconsider this issue at a later date if warranted by the circumstances of this case. DONE this 10th day of December, 2025.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dewayne Scott Cunningham v. Dr. Esbert, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dewayne-scott-cunningham-v-dr-esbert-almd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack