Larry Mack v. Tracy Jackson, et al.

M.D. Alabama

Larry Mack v. Tracy Jackson, et al.

DecidedDecember 8, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00069

StatusUnknown

This text of Larry Mack v. Tracy Jackson, et al. (Larry Mack v. Tracy Jackson, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larry Mack v. Tracy Jackson, et al., (M.D. Ala. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY MACK, AIS # 150585, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-69-WKW ) [WO] TRACY JACKSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to get legal assistance. (Doc. # 11.) A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)). Generally, appointment of counsel in a civil case is “a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting Poole, 819 F.2d at 1028). Although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 12), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) says that “the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel” (emphasis added), the court has broad discretion in deciding whether appointment of counsel is appropriate. Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). As grounds for his motion, Plaintiff simply requests counsel because he has “no way to move forward without help.” Upon review of the record, however, the

issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint are not novel or unduly complex. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not presented any exceptional circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel at this time. Finally, looking to his amended complaint

(Doc. # 7), it appears that Plaintiff is able to articulate facts and grounds for relief without notable difficulty. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 11) is DENIED at this time. The court will

reconsider this issue at a later date if warranted by the circumstances of this case. DONE this 8th day of December, 2025. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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 ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY MACK, AIS # 150585, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-69-WKW ) [WO] TRACY JACKSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to get legal assistance. (Doc. # 11.) A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)). Generally, appointment of counsel in a civil case is “a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting Poole, 819 F.2d at 1028). Although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 12), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) says that “the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel” (emphasis added), the court has broad discretion in deciding whether appointment of counsel is appropriate. Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). As grounds for his motion, Plaintiff simply requests counsel because he has “no way to move forward without help.” Upon review of the record, however, the

issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint are not novel or unduly complex. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not presented any exceptional circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel at this time. Finally, looking to his amended complaint

(Doc. # 7), it appears that Plaintiff is able to articulate facts and grounds for relief without notable difficulty. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 11) is DENIED at this time. The court will

reconsider this issue at a later date if warranted by the circumstances of this case. DONE this 8th day of December, 2025. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Larry Mack v. Tracy Jackson, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-mack-v-tracy-jackson-et-al-almd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack