Wilson v. Amtrak, No. 1:2022cv02884 - Document 12 (D. Md. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin on 12/5/2022. (c/m P 12/5/2022 - dg3s, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. Amtrak Doc. 12 Case 1:22-cv-02884-JRR Document 12 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GAYNELL WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.: JRR-22-2884 AMTRACK, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION The court has received pro se Plaintiff Gaynell Wilson’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 5), stating that she would like a court appointed attorney for her case. A federal district court judge’s power to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is a discretionary one and may be considered where an indigent claimant presents exceptional circumstances. See Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). At this early stage of the case Plaintiff’s need for additional time to file pleadings could be accommodated through extensions of time, rather than appointing counsel. She is also reminded that this Court is obliged to liberally construe self-represented pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Additionally, it cannot yet be determined if a hearing will be necessary to the disposition of this case. Thus, having found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, the motion shall be denied without prejudice. Accordingly, it is this 5th day of December, 2022, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that: Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-02884-JRR Document 12 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 2 1. The Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 5, IS DENIED without prejudice; and 2. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel of record. ___________/S/_________________ Julie R. Rubin United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
