MORGAN v. WARD

M.D. Georgia

MORGAN v. WARD

DecidedAugust 7, 2025

Docket7:21-cv-00033

StatusUnknown

This text of MORGAN v. WARD (MORGAN v. WARD) 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

MORGAN v. WARD, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

SHEM O. MORGAN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:21-CV-33 (LAG) (ALS) : TIMOTHY WARD, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Shem O. Morgan’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 125), dated January 31, 20251 and Defendants’ Response (Doc. 126), filed February 20, 2025. On December 5, 2024, the Court held a status conference, at which the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Motion to Appoint Counsel by January 31, 2025. Although “[a] civil plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel,” the district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Vickers v. Georgia, 567 F. App’x 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2014); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). “The district court has broad discretion in making this decision, and should appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). “The key is whether the pro se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position to the court.” Delgiudice v. Primus, 679 F. App’x 944, 946 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 840 (2017). The complexity of presenting this case to a jury against sixteen defendants constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel for trial only.

1 Plaintiff is aware that the prison mailbox rule means he will not be penalized for any delays on the part of the prison mail system. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1993) (observing that under the “mailbox rule” a court will generally deem a prisoner document filed on the date the plaintiff delivers it to prison officials for mailing). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 125) is GRANTED. The Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Magistrate Judge to appoint counsel for Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED, this 6th day of August, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF 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 VALDOSTA DIVISION

SHEM O. MORGAN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:21-CV-33 (LAG) (ALS) : TIMOTHY WARD, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Shem O. Morgan’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 125), dated January 31, 20251 and Defendants’ Response (Doc. 126), filed February 20, 2025. On December 5, 2024, the Court held a status conference, at which the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Motion to Appoint Counsel by January 31, 2025. Although “[a] civil plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel,” the district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Vickers v. Georgia, 567 F. App’x 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2014); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). “The district court has broad discretion in making this decision, and should appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). “The key is whether the pro se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position to the court.” Delgiudice v. Primus, 679 F. App’x 944, 946 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 840 (2017). The complexity of presenting this case to a jury against sixteen defendants constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel for trial only.

1 Plaintiff is aware that the prison mailbox rule means he will not be penalized for any delays on the part of the prison mail system. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1993) (observing that under the “mailbox rule” a court will generally deem a prisoner document filed on the date the plaintiff delivers it to prison officials for mailing). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 125) is GRANTED. The Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Magistrate Judge to appoint counsel for Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED, this 6th day of August, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

MORGAN v. WARD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-ward-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack