JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

M.D. Georgia

JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

DecidedAugust 13, 2021

Docket5:20-cv-00290

StatusUnknown

This text of JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION) 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

JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, (M.D. Ga. 2021).

Pincite

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-featherstone-homeowners-association-gamd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack