Wiley Curry v. Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 665 F. App'x 766

Wiley Curry, pro se and IFP, sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)/CDC under the Rehabilitation Act and EEOC regs after interviewing but not being hired for a paralegal specialist position.
The district court ordered Curry to file an amended complaint and denied his motions to appoint counsel; Curry filed an amended complaint that failed to follow the court’s instructions.
The district court dismissed Curry’s amended complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order/local rules.
Curry appealed the dismissal, sought appointment of counsel on appeal, and sought leave to proceed IFP on appeal; the district court had denied IFP on appeal but this Court later granted IFP.
The Eleventh Circuit addressed three issues on appeal: denial of appointed counsel, dismissal with prejudice, and jurisdiction to review the district court’s IFP denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion in denying appointment of counsel	Curry argued he needed counsel to present and investigate his Rehabilitation Act claims and to handle conflicting testimony	DHHS argued no exceptional circumstances; issues not complex and Curry was capable of litigating pro se	Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; case not novel/complex and Curry was capable of proceeding pro se
Whether dismissal with prejudice was improper under Rule 41(b) / local rule	Curry contended his original complaint was proper and the court’s amendment instructions were ambiguous	DHHS argued Curry willfully disobeyed court orders and lesser sanctions were inadequate given repeated noncompliance	Dismissal affirmed: record supports willful disregard and implicit finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice
Whether this Court had jurisdiction to review district court’s denial of IFP on appeal	Curry sought review of the district court’s IFP denial	DHHS argued denial order is not a final appealable order and was not properly designated in the notice of appeal	No jurisdiction to review the district court’s IFP denial; issue moot because this Court later granted IFP

Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210 (11th Cir. 1992) (standard of review for appointment of counsel is abuse of discretion)
Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1987) (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases; appointment only in exceptional circumstances)
Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990) (factors for determining exceptional circumstances for appointed counsel)
Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169 (11th Cir. 1985) (appointed counsel unnecessary where facts and law are ascertainable)
Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir. 2006) (standards for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and requirement of record of delay/willfulness for dismissal with prejudice)
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (dismissal after forewarning is generally not an abuse of discretion)
McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1986) (requirements for notices of appeal and designation of orders appealed)
Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1957) (denial of leave to proceed IFP on appeal is not a final appealable order)
Zinni v. ER Sols., 692 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2012) (federal courts lack authority to decide moot questions)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adoption of pre-October 1, 1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding precedent)