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

DEVIN BRANDIS PUGH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-33-ECM-JTA ALPHABET INC., ) (WO) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the court is the motion for appointment of counsel filed by pro se Plaintiff Devin Pugh on March 24, 2025. (Doc. No. 17.) For the reasons stated below, the motion is due to be denied. I. DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel pursuant to

(e)(1). Section 1915(e)(1) states: “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Plaintiff presents no evidence1 he is “unable to afford counsel.”

(e)(1). He offers only an allegation he “ha[s] been granted in forma pauperis.” (Doc. No. 17 at 1 (sic).) He is incorrect. To date, Plaintiff has not successfully

1 In his present motion, Plaintiff does not cite or rely on the sworn statements in his previously- denied Application for Leave to Proceed In District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. No. 8.) That motion was denied for multiple reasons, including an internal inconsistency that made it unclear whether the affidavit fully represents Plaintiff’s assets. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action despite being ordered to do so or pay the filing fee. (See Docs. No. 6, 9.)

Further, “appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right” and is granted only in “exceptional circumstances.” Norrell v. Phenix City Pub. Transportation (PEX), No. 3:24-CV-411-RAH-JTA,

, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 12, 2024) (citiations and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. He mentions he is “disabl[ed],” but he does not state how that disability affects his ability to represent himself. (Doc. No. 17 at 1.) He states he “lacks

legal training.” (Id.) Lack of legal training is a characteristic of all pro se plaintiffs, not an exceptional circumstance. Plaintiff also makes the bare allegation this case presents “complex legal issues.” (Id.) He does not identify those complex issues or explain why they are complex enough to necessitate appointment of counsel. On its face, “[t]his case does not appear more complex than most civil rights cases litigated by [plaintiffs] who are

untrained in the law and have limited resources available to them.” Norrell,

, at *2 (quoting Hill v. Prock, No. 3:22-CV-866-BJD-PDB,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2024)). As Plaintiff has previously been advised, he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Doc. No. 15.) That includes Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a certificate of service to be filed with all motions, pleadings, and other papers nonelectronically filed with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D), (d)(1)(B)(i). Plaintiff’s motion lacks a certificate of service. Going forward, the court may strike documents for repeated failure to include a certificate of service and failure to comply with this order. Il. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED. DONE this 31st day of March, 2025.

JERYUSHA T. ADAMS TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE