SANDERS v. FORD

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

JOHN NICHOLAS SANDERS, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:22-cv-00295-CHW v. : : BENJAMIN FORD, et al., : : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Defendants. : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge : ______________________________________

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff John Nicholas Sanders seeks the appointment of counsel to represent him concerning this case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. (Doc. 13). No right to counsel exists in a civil case. Wahl v McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be appointed, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claims 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 has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims and 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 Southern Dist. Of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). the applicable legal doctrines are readily apparent. As such, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 13) is DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, then the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting Plaintiff in securing legal counsel at that time.

SO ORDERED, this 27th day of October, 2022.

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