UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDACASE NO. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/O'SULLIVANTRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,Plaintiff,vs. ANA GINSPERT andDISMAS CHARITIES, INC.,Defendants. ______________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel(DE# 8, 1/31/11) and on the plaintiff’s second Motion for the Appointment of Counsel(DE# 13, 3/28/11). Having reviewed the motions and being otherwise advised in thepremises, it isORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (DE#8, 1/31/11) and second Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (DE# 13, 3/28/11) areDENIED. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a district court has discretion to appointcounsel for indigent litigants in civil cases. “Court appointed counsel in civil cases iswarranted only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271(11th Cir. 1996) (citing Kiglo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993)). “The meritsof the plaintiff’s claim and whether the claim is factually or legally so complex as towarrant assistance of counsel” are some of the factors that the Court should consider todetermine whether exceptional circumstances exist. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853(11th Cir. 1989).
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2011 Page 1 of 4
2Having reviewed the pleadings, the undersigned finds that no such exceptionalcircumstances exist in case at hand. As it appears from the plaintiff’s Motion for theReturn of Property (DE# 1, 1/12/11), the plaintiff alleges that he was subjected toexcessive discipline for driving a vehicle. He asserts that he did not know such drivingviolated his home confinement regime. Id. at 1-2.The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant organization, through its staff,removed the personal items from the plaintiff’s possession and/or vehicle withoutproper notice or authority. Id. at 2. The Motion for the Return of Property, however,does not make it clear that the defendants were under an obligation to provide suchnotice and does not establish what constitutes proper notice. The Motion for the Returnof Property also fails to establish the value of the property allegedly removed by thedefendants.Finally, the plaintiff alleges hostile, abusive and threatening conduct on the partof the defendant Dismas Charities’ staff. Id. at 3. The Motion for the Return of Propertydoes not include any examples or descriptions of specific instances of conduct thatwould constitute a threat or abuse or create a hostile environment. Additionally, theplaintiff’s claim of an unlawful search of his vehicle lacks merit. The defendants areprivate parties, and, therefore, their actions do not trigger the constitutional implicationsof the Fourth Amendment. However, “[i]n case of a pro se action, . . . the court shouldconstrue the complaint more liberally than it would formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). The undersigned finds that theallegations in the Motion for the Return of Property, although unclear and insufficientlydescribed, may have merit.
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2011 Page 2 of 4
3With regard to the complexity of the case, “[t]he key [question] is whether the prose litigant needs help in presenting
the essential merits
of his or her position to thecourt. Where the facts and issues are simple, he or she usually will not need suchhelp.” Kiglo, at 983 F.2d at 193 (emphasis added). The issues raised in the plaintiff’spleadings are not legally or factually complex. As evident from the pleadings, theplaintiff was able to research the subject matter and provide background and legalallegations without the assistance of counsel. While legal assistance in this case maybe beneficial, the claims asserted by the plaintiff do not constitute novel or complexissues.The merits of the case are unclear and, at least based on the facts alleged in theMotion for the Return of Property, do not seem particularly strong. The claims assertedin the Motion for the Return of Property do not involve complex or novel legal issues.Therefore, the circumstances in this case do not rise to the level of “exceptional.” Theplaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (DE# 8, 1/31/11) and his second Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (DE# 13, 3/28/11) are DENIED.The plaintiff may contact the Volunteer Lawyers Project, located at 100 SE 2ndStreet, # 4320, Miami, FL 33131-2113, tel. (305) 373-4334, to determine whether hecan obtain free legal assistance with this case.
DONE AND ORDERED
in Chambers at Miami, Florida this
30th
day of March,2011.__________________________________ JOHN J. O’SULLIVANUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2011 Page 3 of 4
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
