GIBSON v. SMITH

M.D. Georgia

GIBSON v. SMITH

DecidedNovember 2, 2021

Docket5:21-cv-00328

StatusUnknown

This text of GIBSON v. SMITH (GIBSON v. SMITH) 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

GIBSON v. SMITH, (M.D. Ga. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

BARRY LYNN GIBSON, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 5:21-cv-328-TES-CHW : Warden AIMEE SMITH, et al., : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge Defendants. : :

ORDER Plaintiff Barry Lynn Gibson has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 12). No right to counsel exists in civil rights actions. Whal v McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). Rather, appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982). In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 682 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and that the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting Plaintiff in securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, there is no need for Plaintiff to file additional requests for counsel.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of November, 2021. s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate 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 GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

BARRY LYNN GIBSON, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 5:21-cv-328-TES-CHW : Warden AIMEE SMITH, et al., : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge Defendants. : :

ORDER Plaintiff Barry Lynn Gibson has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 12). No right to counsel exists in civil rights actions. Whal v McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). Rather, appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982). In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 682 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, and that the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting Plaintiff in securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, there is no need for Plaintiff to file additional requests for counsel.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of November, 2021. s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

GIBSON v. SMITH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-smith-gamd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack