WILSON v. PERRY

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: January 10, 2022
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00457
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

MICHAEL DAVID WILSON, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:21-cv-00457-MTT-CHW v. : : WARDEN CLINTON PERRY, et al., : : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Defendant. : Before the U. S. Magistrate Judge : _________________________________

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Michael David Wilson, Jr., an inmate at the Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ATTORNEY Plaintiff has moved for this Court to appoint him an attorney. ECF No. 3. 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

In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a complaint under § 1983 following the format and style of the Court's standard form and setting forth essential factual allegations. See generally ECF No. 1. The applicable legal doctrines in Plaintiff's claims are readily apparent, and the Court has not imposed any procedural requirements which would limit Plaintiff's ability to

present his case. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193-94 (11th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to present his claims to the Court for review. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is 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. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s account certification indicates that he has average monthly deposits in his account for the

previous six months of $521.58. ECF No. 2-1 at 2. Plaintiff further has $1,972.88 on

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 hand in his prisoner account. Id. Plaintiff indicates that he receives “about 200$ per

month from family”. ECF No. 2 at 2. Thus, Plaintiff has enough money to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. Plaintiff should note that it is his responsibility to initially pay filing fees upon the submission of any complaint in this Court. Thus, Plaintiff must arrange to have the filing fee forwarded to the Court. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the $402.00

filing fee in full within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date shown on this Order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action. CONCLUSION In conclusion, as set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is

also DENIED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the full filing fee of $402.00. Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date shown on this Order to pay the required filing fee to the Clerk of Court. There shall be no service in this case until further order of the Court and Plaintiff shall keep the Court informed of any future address change. Failure to comply with this

Court’s order will result in the dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2022.

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