JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Opinion

FOR THE MIDMDALCEO DNI SDTIVRIISCIOT NO F GEORGIA

QUINCY BERNARD JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-290 (MTT) ) FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ) ASSOCIATION, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Quincy Bernard Jones again moves for appointment of counsel.1 Doc. 30. Jones argues that he requires counsel because he has witnesses that he does not know how to subpoena or depose. Doc. 30 at 1. Jones also contends that Featherstone possesses documents which Jones does not know how to properly obtain. Id. at 2. Unlike Featherstone’s counsel, Jones says that he does not possess the skills or knowledge that would give him a “fair shot” in this proceeding. Id. Finally, Jones asserts that he cannot afford to hire an attorney because of his fixed income, and that his several attempts to retain representation from civil rights lawyers have been unsuccessful. Id. “Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Rather, “it is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” Id. (citation omitted). Jones has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify appointment of counsel in his civil case. Accordingly, Jones’s motion (Doc. 30) is DENIED.

1 Jones’s first motion to appoint counsel was submitted on January 11, 2021 and denied by the Court on S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT