GOODEN v. PHAMS

M.D. Georgia

GOODEN v. PHAMS

DecidedNovember 15, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-00301

StatusUnknown

This text of GOODEN v. PHAMS (GOODEN v. PHAMS) 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

GOODEN v. PHAMS, (M.D. Ga. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JIMMY GOODEN, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:24-cv-301-MTT-AGH v. : : Warden PHAMS, et al., : : Defendants. : :

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mot. to Appoint Couns., ECF No. 4. As this is Plaintiff’s first request for counsel, the Court advises Plaintiff that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).1 The Court finds that Plaintiff set forth the basic factual allegations underlying his claims and that the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. See Compl.,

1 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute does not, however, 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 (1989). ECF No. 1. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in

securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, there is no need for Plaintiff to file additional requests for counsel. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of November, 2024. s/ Amelia G. Helmick 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

JIMMY GOODEN, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:24-cv-301-MTT-AGH v. : : Warden PHAMS, et al., : : Defendants. : :

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mot. to Appoint Couns., ECF No. 4. As this is Plaintiff’s first request for counsel, the Court advises Plaintiff that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986). Appointment of counsel is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).1 The Court finds that Plaintiff set forth the basic factual allegations underlying his claims and that the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. See Compl.,

1 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute does not, however, 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 (1989). ECF No. 1. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in

securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, there is no need for Plaintiff to file additional requests for counsel. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of November, 2024. s/ Amelia G. Helmick UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

GOODEN v. PHAMS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gooden-v-phams-gamd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack