Reilly v. State of Florida, 2:15-cv-00014

Michael Reilly, a plaintiff in the Middle District of Florida, challenged the denial of in forma pauperis status and sua sponte dismissal of his complaint.
The court denied IFP status on January 28, 2015, finding the complaint frivolous and requiring amendment.
The court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend and later denied Reilly’s objections to that ruling.
Reilly filed an objection to the order denying his objection (Doc. 7) on June 23, 2015.
The court reaffirmed that the complaint is conclusory and fails to meet Rule 8 and 10, cites Twombly, and denied appointment of counsel.
The court granted an extension for filing an amended complaint up to July 15, 2015, with dismissal if not amended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint meets Rule 8/Rule 10 pleading standards	Reilly argues for relief and amendment rights	Complaint is conclusory and fails to state grounds for relief	Complaint insufficient; dismissed with leave to amend
Whether appointment of counsel is warranted given the IFP context	Requests counsel due to complexity	No exceptional circumstances; no right to counsel in civil rights statuary challenge	Denied; no exceptional circumstances; pro se status allowed
Whether pro se status and liberal construction justify proceeding	Pro se plaintiff capable of litigating and complying	Court should not presume complexity requiring counsel	Pro se status acceptable; court may liberalize pleadings but still denied appointment of counsel

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires plausible grounds for relief)
Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (right to appointed counsel only where liberty at stake)
Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1982) (factors for exceptional circumstances in forma pauperis)
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982) (exceptional circumstances analysis framework)
Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 (4th Cir. 1975) (counsel appointment in pauper proceedings discussed)
Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210 (11th Cir. 1992) (case cited for pro se liberal construction and amendment opportunity)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards)
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) (standard for dismissal of pro se pleadings; qualified immunity discussion)
Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984) (overturning Scheuer on qualified immunity)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings and extensions)
Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (cannot compel appointment of counsel for indigent in civil cases)