Michael Terrell Thomas v. Wayne Ellis, et al.

M.D. Alabama

Michael Terrell Thomas v. Wayne Ellis, et al.

District Court, M.D. Alabama·Decided May 14, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-00218·Unknown

Opinion

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

MICHAEL TERRELL THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:26-CV-218-WKW ) [WO] WAYNE ELLIS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Michael Terrell Thomas’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. # 4.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he “would like the court[’]s help with appointing [him] counsel.” He asserts that “a man” at the Lowndes County Jail has been helping with his paperwork and that he would like counsel appointed to further advise him in his case. (Id.) 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 (see Doc. # 5), 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). Upon review of the record, the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint are not

novel or unduly complex, and it appears that Plaintiff is able to articulate facts and grounds for relief without notable difficulty. Moreover, Plaintiff has not made a showing of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the appointment of counsel at this time.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. # 4) 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 14th day of May, 2026. /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

MICHAEL TERRELL THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:26-CV-218-WKW ) [WO] WAYNE ELLIS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Michael Terrell Thomas’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. # 4.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he “would like the court[’]s help with appointing [him] counsel.” He asserts that “a man” at the Lowndes County Jail has been helping with his paperwork and that he would like counsel appointed to further advise him in his case. (Id.) 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 (see Doc. # 5), 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). Upon review of the record, the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint are not

novel or unduly complex, and it appears that Plaintiff is able to articulate facts and grounds for relief without notable difficulty. Moreover, Plaintiff has not made a showing of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the appointment of counsel at this time.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. # 4) 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 14th day of May, 2026. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Michael Terrell Thomas v. Wayne Ellis, et al., (M.D. Ala. 2026).

Pincite

Michael Terrell Thomas v. Wayne Ellis, et al. (Michael Terrell Thomas v. Wayne Ellis, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related