HALTIWANGER v. IVEY
HALTIWANGER v. IVEY
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
ALEX HALTIWANGER, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:25-cv-156-TES-CHW v. : : Warden GEORGE IVEY, et al., : : Proceedings Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983Defendants. : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge : ______________________________________
ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Alex Haltiwanger’s motion for default judgment. (Doc. 25). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to file a timely answer despite receiving an extension of time from the Court to do so and asks that the Court enter a default judgment against her. (Id.) Plaintiff correctly acknowledges that Defendants requested and received an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint until September 26, 2025. See (Docs. 17, 18). Because Defendants have filed a timely pre- answer motion to dismiss (Doc. 23), Defendants are not in default. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 25) is therefore DENIED. Within his motion for default, Plaintiff again seeks the appointment of counsel to represent him in this case. (Doc. 25, p. 2). For the reasons explained in the Court’s previous orders (Docs. 8, 22), Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff is reminded that no right to counsel exists in a civil case. Wahl v McIver,
773 F.2d 1169, 1174(11th Cir. 1986). 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 6th day of October, 2025. s/ Charles H. Weigle_________ Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Alex Haltiwanger v. Warden George Ivey, et al.
- Status
- Unknown