Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RUBEN C. FERNANDEZ OLIVARES

 Plaintiff,

vs. 5:10cv55/RS/MD

PMI EMPLOYEE LEASING

 Defendants.

O R D E R

This case is before the court upon plaintiff’s employment discrimination complaint

(doc.1) and motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 2). The filing fee has been paid in

this case. 

Plaintiff complains that the defendant discriminated against him because of his race

and his disability when it failed to accommodate plaintiff’s disability, terminated plaintiff’s

employment and retaliated against plaintiff. Plaintiff states that he brings this case

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117, although no

action for race discrimination lies under that statute. In addition, plaintiff has failed to

explain the facts of his case in section III of the complaint form in accordance with the

instructions, instead referring to attachments. While plaintiff may feel free to submit

attachments to support and substantiate the allegations in his complaint, he must also

complete the complaint form. The use of a prescribed form was adopted for reasons of

administrative convenience. This court, with its large volume of pro se actions, saves

valuable time if it is not required to decipher lengthy and often unintelligible submissions. 
Page 2 of 3

This saving would be lost if plaintiffs were allowed to either forgo use of the form entirely,

or to fill in the form with a notation instead of completing the form itself. In light of the

administrative benefits derived from the use of the form, he must fully complete the form,

in accordance with the instructions. Plaintiff should file the amended complaint with an

original signature with the Court and keep an identical copy for himself. Plaintiff is advised

that the amended complaint must contain all of his allegations, and he must include any

attachments he wishes the court to consider, because once an amended complaint is filed,

all earlier complaints and filings are disregarded. Local Rule 15.1, Northern District of

Florida. 

Plaintiff has also requested appointment of counsel. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 grants

general authority for the appointment of counsel as a matter of discretion in purely private,

civil litigation, and there is no express provision for the payment of fees or reimbursement

of costs, as in the case of criminal prosecutions and habeas corpus proceedings. A district

court has broad discretion, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), in deciding whether to request

counsel for indigent litigants in civil cases. Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156 (11 Cir. 1999). th

Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. 

Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1712, 1720 (11 Cir. 1999). The number of volunteer lawyers th

willing to accept appointment in such cases on a pro bono publico basis is limited.

Consequently, the Court is unable to honor all of the requests made for the appointment

of counsel. In Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11 Cir. 1989) the court stated that in th

determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court typically considers, among other

factors, the merits of the plaintiff's claim and whether the claim is factually or legally so

complex as to warrant the assistance of counsel. See also Bass, supra; Edgington v.

Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8 Cir. 1995); Jackson v. Dallas Police th

Dept., 811 F.2d 260, 261-62 (5 Cir. 1986); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61

th

(2 Cir. 1986); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. 1986); Maclin v. nd th

Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887-88 (7 Cir. 1981) (per curiam); cf. Caston v. Sears, Roebuck th

& Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5 Cir. 1977) (merits of case is factor in determining if district th

court abused discretion in denying appointed counsel in a Title VII case). Another

Case No: 5:10cv55/RS/MD
Page 3 of 3

consideration 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 (11 Cir. 1993). At this th

juncture, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is warranted, and plaintiff’s motion

will be denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 2) is denied without

prejudice. 

2. The clerk is directed to send plaintiff an “employment discrimination complaint

form.” This case number and the words “Amended Complaint” shall be written on the form.

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint and supporting documentation within

thirty days from the date of this order, as instructed herein. Once this is done, the court will

provide plaintiff with information concerning service of process.

4. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the

district court that this case be dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of March, 2010.

th

/s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv55/RS/MD