AKINS
v.
DIXON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thomas Akins, a Florida Department of Corrections prisoner litigating in forma pauperis, appealed a magistrate judge's denial of appointed counsel in a civil case. The district court affirmed the denial, finding no exceptional circumstances warranted appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
No exceptional circumstances warranted appointment of counsel. The case was not particularly complex, prisoners commonly litigate similar cases pro se, and Akins demonstrated he could prepare his own submissions to the court.
[1] District courts have discretion to request counsel for civil litigants proceeding in forma pauperis when exceptional circumstances warrant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. …
[2] Exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel in civil cases are determined by considering factors such as the complexity of the case, the plaintiff's abili…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, Congress has given district courts discretion to request counsel for civil litigants proceeding in forma pauperis when exceptional circumstances warrant.”
Establishes the legal framework that district courts have discretion but no constitutional obligation to appoint counsel in civil cases when exceptional circumstances exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAkins is a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action against Dixon and others. He requested app…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretionary Appointment Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas Akins' Motion for Reconsideration for Appointment of Counsel and/or Motion Objecting to the Courts Denial of Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 10). Akins is a prisoner of the Florida Department of Corrections, and he is litigating this action in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge Kyle Dudek denied Akins' request for appointment of counsel:
Akins also seeks appointment of counsel. Although there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, Congress has given district courts discretion to request counsel for civil litigants proceeding in forma pauperis when exceptional circumstances warrant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Bass v. Perrin, 170 F. 3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). In determining whether “exceptional circumstances" warrant appointment of counsel, the court considers various factors, including (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent plaintiff can adequately present his case, (3) whether the indigent plaintiff can adequately investigate the case, and (4) whether the evidence will consist largely of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F. 2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
The Court finds no exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel here. The case is not particularly complex, prisoners commonly litigate cases like this pro se, and Akins has demonstrated that he can prepare his own submissions to the Court. Accordingly, Akins' motion (Doc. 3) is denied.
(Doc. 6). Akins argues Judge Dudek misconstrued and misapplied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court is not persuaded.
A district judge “may reconsider any pretrial matter...where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court finds nothing “clearly erroneous” or "contrary to law" in Judge Dudek's order. Judge Dudek reasonably applied the correct legal standard. Accordingly, Akins' objection to Judge Dudek's Order (Doc. 10) is OVERRULED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 10, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Genus D. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999)