Wilson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

D. Maryland

Wilson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, D. Maryland·Decided December 5, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-02884·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GAYNELL WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.: JRR-22-2884 AMTRACK, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION The court has received pro se Plaintiff Gaynell Wilson’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 5), stating that she would like a court appointed attorney for her case. A federal district court judge’s power to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is a discretionary one and may be considered where an indigent claimant presents exceptional circumstances. See Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Branch v. Cole,

686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). At this early stage of the case Plaintiff’s need for additional time to file pleadings could be accommodated through extensions of time, rather than appointing counsel. She is also reminded that this Court is obliged to liberally construe self-represented pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Additionally, it cannot yet be determined if a hearing will be necessary to the disposition of this case. Thus, having found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, the motion shall be denied without prejudice. Accordingly, it is this 5th day of December, 2022, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 5, IS DENIED without prejudice; and 2. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel of record.

___________/S/_________________ Julie R. Rubin 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 DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GAYNELL WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.: JRR-22-2884 AMTRACK, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION The court has received pro se Plaintiff Gaynell Wilson’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 5), stating that she would like a court appointed attorney for her case. A federal district court judge’s power to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is a discretionary one and may be considered where an indigent claimant presents exceptional circumstances. See Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Branch v. Cole,

686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). At this early stage of the case Plaintiff’s need for additional time to file pleadings could be accommodated through extensions of time, rather than appointing counsel. She is also reminded that this Court is obliged to liberally construe self-represented pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Additionally, it cannot yet be determined if a hearing will be necessary to the disposition of this case. Thus, having found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, the motion shall be denied without prejudice. Accordingly, it is this 5th day of December, 2022, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 5, IS DENIED without prejudice; and 2. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel of record.

___________/S/_________________ Julie R. Rubin United States District Judge

Wilson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, (D. Md. 2022).

Pincite

Wilson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Wilson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related