BONILLA-BONILLA v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
5:23-cv-00015
| M.D. Ga. | Jul 18, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Marvin Bonilla‑Bonilla, a prisoner at Central State Prison, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint and sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status.
- The Magistrate Judge granted IFP and ordered an initial partial filing fee of $18.17; Plaintiff failed to pay and did not timely respond to an order to show cause.
- The Court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee and entered judgment in late June 2023.
- Plaintiff filed a motion construed as one for reconsideration, explaining he received the April order late, is blind and has limited English, attempted to mail a response with another inmate’s help, prison administration did not withdraw the fee, and his sister mistakenly sent money orders to the wrong district.
- The Court concluded Plaintiff’s failures were attributable to circumstances outside his control and set aside the dismissal under Rule 59(e); the Court waived prepayment of the initial partial fee (while retaining the obligation to pay the fee in full) and referred the case to the Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
- The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to pay initial partial filing fee should be set aside | Bonilla says he did not receive the fee order timely, is blind/limited English, attempted to comply, prison admin failed to withdraw funds, and sister sent money orders to wrong court | Court’s basis for dismissal: Plaintiff failed to pay required initial partial fee and failed to respond to the show‑cause order | Court vacated the dismissal under Rule 59(e) in the interests of justice and waived prepayment of the initial partial fee (fee still owed) |
| Whether counsel should be appointed for Plaintiff | Bonilla requests appointed counsel to assist with his case | Court/defendants implicitly oppose appointment absent exceptional circumstances | Court denied appointment of counsel; no exceptional circumstances shown but left open future appointment if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169 (11th Cir. 1986) (appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a constitutional right)
- Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1989) (factors to consider when deciding appointment of counsel)
- United States v. Battle, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (Rule 59(e) may alter or amend a judgment to prevent manifest injustice)
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (§1915 does not authorize courts to compel attorneys to represent indigent civil litigants or provide funds to pay counsel)