MCBRIDE

v.

GUZINA

Plaintiff, who appears pro se, requests that the Court appoint him counsel because of his overwhelming financial debt and his opinion that “due process would be best served by a private attorney” (Doc. 9). Plaintiff recently filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which was denied without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to allege facts from which it can be reasonably inferred that Defendants committed any federal violation (Doc. 8). However, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel in this matter.¹

Bass v. Perrin, 170 F. 3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Though a district court may appoint counsel for an indigent party, a civil litigant has no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. Id. Instead, the appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by the existence of exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues in the case are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F. 2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Although no precise definition of what constitutes exceptional circumstances exists, in determining whether to appoint counsel, courts may consider such factors as (1) the type and complexity of the case;

(2) whether the pro se litigant is capable of adequately presenting his or her case; (3) whether the pro se litigant is in a position to adequately investigate the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony thereby requiring skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination of witnesses. See Collins v. Homestead Corr. Inst., 452 F. App’x 848, 850 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). In the end, the key for a court determining whether to appoint counsel consult with a lawyer on a limited basis for free. More information about the program is available on the Court’s website at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/legal-informationprogram. “is whether the pro se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position to the court.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F. 2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993). Where, as here, the facts and issues are relatively straightforward, the pro se litigant typically will not require the assistance of counsel. See id. Indeed, courts have denied a pro se litigant’s request for appointment of counsel in cases involving constitutional violations, employment disputes, and purported discrimination. See, e.g., Bass, 170 F. 3d at 1320 (affirming a district court’s denial of a pro se prisoner’s motion for appointment of counsel in a case involving alleged constitutional violations where no exceptional circumstances existed and the legal claims were straightforward); Colon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 6:12-cv-1447-ORL- 18TBS, 2012 WL 6212911, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2012), report and recommendation approved at 2012 WL 6484258 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2012) (denying appointment of counsel for pro se litigant asserting claims for discrimination and retaliation); Larez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 8:09-CV-1010-T-30EAJ, 2009 WL 2902008, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2009) (denying appointment of counsel for pro se litigant asserting claims for wrongful termination). In this instance, given Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff has thus far demonstrated an ability to communicate his allegations and litigate his case in a proficient manner. Further, as noted, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any special circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. As a result, Plaintiff’s request for the Court to appoint him counsel is denied. See F.T.C. v. Lalonde, 545 F. App’x 825, 833-34 (11th Cir. 2013) (upholding the denial by a district court of a request by a pro se party to appoint counsel where the magistrate judge determined that, among other things, the pro se party was capable of presenting his legal arguments and defending the action). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 9) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 17th day of May, 2021.

J > 7 hh 4 ANTHONY E. aE United Sfates Magistrate Judge ce: Plaintiff, pro se