MCCRARY v. BURNETT

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: January 18, 2024
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00439
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

KELDRICK JABBAR MCCRARY, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : NO. 5:23-CV-00439-TES-CHW : DEPUTY BURNETT, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ :

ORDER Presently pending before the Court are the claims of pro se Plaintiff Keldrick Jabbar McCrary, an inmate presently incarcerated in the Houston County Correctional Institution in Perry, Georgia, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his Complaint on the Court’s standard form and either pay the Court’s filing fee or file a proper and complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. See generally Order, Nov. 28, 2023, ECF No. 3. When the time for compliance passed without a response from Plaintiff, he was ordered to respond and show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and instructions. See generally Order, Jan. 4, 2024, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has now responded and stated that although he received the Court’s forms, he “do[es] not fully understand how to fill [them] out.” Pl.’s Resp. 1, Jan. 11, 2024, ECF No. 5. He further states that “this case should not be dismissed because [he] do[es] not have an attorney to help [him] understand this package,” and he also says he is afraid of some of the deputies and that they have “been going through [his] legal mail trying to see what’s going on.” Id. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointed counsel to assist him

in completing his forms (ECF No. 6). 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 But “[t]he key” in determining whether appointed counsel is warranted “is whether the pro se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his position to the court.” Nelson v. McLaughlin, 608 F. App’x 904, 905 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court

notes that Plaintiff has been able to set forth the facts underlying his legal claims, and the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. As the Court’s standard forms explain, Plaintiff does not have to give any legal argument or cite to any cases or statutes when he is completing the forms; he must simply answer the questions set forth in the forms and do

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). 2 his best to explain what happened to him. Plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel (ECF No. 6) is accordingly DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is

required in order 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. Given that Plaintiff has made some effort to respond to the January 4th Show Cause Order, Plaintiff will be given an additional FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to recast his Complaint on the Court’s standard form and either submit a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is also reminded of his obligation to notify the Court in writing of any change in his mailing address. The failure to fully and timely comply with this Order will likely result in the dismissal of this case. There shall be no service of process until further order of the Court. SO ORDERED, this 18th day of January, 2024.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge