Opinion ID: 41660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Joiner’s Appeal

Text: On appeal, Joiner raises two issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by denying his motion for appointment of counsel, and (2) whether summary judgment was proper on the grounds that the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity.
We review the denial of a plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel for abuse of discretion. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel, and the district court has broad discretion in making this decision. Id.; Killian v. Holt, 166 F.3d 1156, 1157 (11th Cir. 1999). The court should appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, the 5 legal issues involved in Joiner’s case are not so novel or complex as to require counsel. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Skrtich v. Thorton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Eberhardt v. Waters, 901 F.2d 1578, 1580 (11th Cir. 1990). To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons given in the district court’s opinion dated June 7, 2005. AFFIRMED. 6