Kayla Woods, et al. v. Kubera REIT, LLC et al.

M.D. Georgia

Kayla Woods, et al. v. Kubera REIT, LLC et al.

DecidedNovember 10, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00472

StatusUnknown

This text of Kayla Woods, et al. v. Kubera REIT, LLC et al. (Kayla Woods, et al. v. Kubera REIT, LLC et al.) 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

Kayla Woods, et al. v. Kubera REIT, LLC et al., (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

KAYLA WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:25-cv-00472-TES KUBERA REIT, LLC et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff Kayla Woods’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 5], presumably brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See [Doc. 5]. In her Motion, Plaintiff asserts that she is “unable to pay the costs of this action,” that her “knowledge of the practice of law is very limited and the issues in this case are complex,” that she has been “unable to obtain counsel independently,” and that “the interests of justice would be best served by the appointment of counsel in this matter.” [Doc. 5, p. 1]. A civil litigant has no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the appointment of counsel is a privilege, which is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as when the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of counsel. Id. at 1028. Here, the Court has considered the matter’s complexity and Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute her claims. The Court is unable to identify any exceptional circumstances, such as novel or complex facts and legal issues, that would

require the appointment of counsel. As such, the Court exercises its discretion and denies the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). SO ORDERED, this 10th day of November, 2025.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

KAYLA WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:25-cv-00472-TES KUBERA REIT, LLC et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff Kayla Woods’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 5], presumably brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See [Doc. 5]. In her Motion, Plaintiff asserts that she is “unable to pay the costs of this action,” that her “knowledge of the practice of law is very limited and the issues in this case are complex,” that she has been “unable to obtain counsel independently,” and that “the interests of justice would be best served by the appointment of counsel in this matter.” [Doc. 5, p. 1]. A civil litigant has no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the appointment of counsel is a privilege, which is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as when the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of counsel. Id. at 1028. Here, the Court has considered the matter’s complexity and Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute her claims. The Court is unable to identify any exceptional circumstances, such as novel or complex facts and legal issues, that would

require the appointment of counsel. As such, the Court exercises its discretion and denies the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). SO ORDERED, this 10th day of November, 2025.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kayla Woods, et al. v. Kubera REIT, LLC et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kayla-woods-et-al-v-kubera-reit-llc-et-al-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack