WOODS et al v. KUBERA REIT LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
KAYLA WOODS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KUBERA REIT, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:25-cv-00472-TES
ORDER
Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff Kayla Woods’ Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [Doc. 5], presumably brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See [Doc. 5]. In her
Motion, Plaintiff asserts that she is “unable to pay the costs of this action,” that her
“knowledge of the practice of law is very limited and the issues in this case are
complex,” that she has been “unable to obtain counsel independently,” and that “the
interests of justice would be best served by the appointment of counsel in this matter.”
[Doc. 5, p. 1].
A civil litigant has no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of counsel.
Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the appointment of
counsel is a privilege, which is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as
when the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of
counsel. Id. at 1028. Here, the Court has considered the matter’s complexity and
Case 5:25-cv-00472-TES Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute her claims. The Court is unable to identify any
exceptional circumstances, such as novel or complex facts and legal issues, that would
require the appointment of counsel. As such, the Court exercises its discretion and
denies the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of November, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00472-TES Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 2