King v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN D. KING, 	)
AIS# 134091 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	CIV. A. NO. 23-00147-TFM-N
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, 	)
INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Steven D. King’s Motions for Appointment of Attorney.
(Docs. 13, 40). Plaintiff’s motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for appropriate action. (Doc. 3). For the reasons stated below, and at
this time, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED.
In a § 1983 action, as in any civil action, “[a] plaintiff … has no constitutional right to
counsel.” McDaniels v. Lee, 405 F. App’x 456, 457 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). “A court may, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), appoint
counsel for an indigent plaintiff.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999 “[I]n
deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district court has broad discretion and should appoint
counsel only in exceptional circumstances.” Lamar v. Wells Fargo Bank, 597 F. App’x 555, 557
(11th Cir. 2014) (citing Bass, 170 F.3d at 1320). In Lamar, the Eleventh Circuit listed several
factors that should be considered by the district court when determining whether exceptional
circumstances exist: “(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent is capable
of adequately presenting his case; (3) whether the indigent is in a position to adequately
Case 1:23-cv-00147-TFM-N Doc# 41 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

investigate the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of incidents the
indigent witnessed herself.” 597 F. App’x at 558.
Here, Plaintiff has not established that his case, factually or legally, is too complex for
him to prosecute at this stage of litigation. The undersigned finds Plaintiff has not shown
exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel. Therefore, in exercising its
discretion, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.
DONE and ORDERED this the 6th day of August, 2024.
/s/ KATHERINE P. NELSON_____________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00147-TFM-N Doc# 41 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>