Hightower v. WalleyHightower v. Walley
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff Richard A. Hightower’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 12). In the motion, Hightower, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, reiterates his contention that counsel should be appointed because he “is unable or otherwise unqualified” to represent himself in this matter. Hightower further represents that he “has an officially documented diagnosis of adult ADHD,” which affects him “in ways that even he is unable to understand or articulate.” (Id. at 1-2).
As noted previously, a district court has broad discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case. See
As a civil litigant, Hightower has no absolute statutory or constitutional right to counsel. See Sims v. Nguyen, 403 F. App’x 410, 414 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Bass, 170 F.3d at 1320 (“A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.”). Appointment of counsel “is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “the key” to assessing whether counsel should be appointed “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 the facts and issues are simple, he or she usually will not need such help.” Id.
Once again, Hightower has not shown that the instant case presents exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel on his behalf. Hightower’s claims are neither factually nor legally complex. Regardless of his alleged ADHD diagnosis, Hightower has thus far been able to follow the Court’s instructions and present the essential merits of his position to the Court in an organized fashion. Like most other
Because Hightower has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the appointment of counsel, his renewed motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 12) is DENIED. Nothing in this order prevents Hightower from obtaining counsel on his own, but the Court will not assist him in doing so at this time. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required in order to avoid prejudice to Hightower’s rights, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in securing legal counsel at that time. Consequently, there is no need for Hightower to file additional requests for appointment of counsel.
ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2026.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE