TAYLOR v. BURGAMY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
GRADY TAYLOR, JR., :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Case No. 5:25-cv-484-MTT-ALS
:
INVESTIGATOR TREY :
BURGAMY, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
_________________________________
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Grady Taylor, Jr., a prisoner at Jefferson County Correctional Institution
in Louisville, Georgia, filed a civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1).
He also moved for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) and to appoint counsel. (Docs. 2, 3). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion
to appoint counsel is DENIED. However, as it appears Plaintiff is unable to pay the cost of
commencing this action, his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is GRANTED.
I. Motion for appointment of counsel
In support of his motion to appoint counsel Plaintiff asserts that he cannot afford to hire
counsel, his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate the case, a trial will likely involve
conflicting testimony, and he has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a lawyer. (Doc. 3, at 1).
A district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”1
1 The statute, however, does not provide any funding to pay attorneys for their representation or authorize courts to
compel attorneys to represent an indigent party in a civil case. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490
U.S. 296, 310 (1989); Taylor v. Pekerol, 760 F. App’x 647, 651 (11th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted) (stating that the
district court has no “inherent power” to compel counsel to represent a civil litigant and § 1915(e)(1) provides no such
authority).
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 5

2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). There is, however, “no absolute constitutional right to the appointment of
counsel” in a § 1983 lawsuit. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (citations
omitted). Appointment of counsel is “instead 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.” Id. (citations omitted). In determining whether a case presents
extraordinary circumstances, the Court considers
(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff is capable of
adequately presenting his case; (3) whether the plaintiff is in a position to
adequately investigate the case; (4) whether the evidence “will consist in large part
of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in
cross examination”; and (5) whether the appointment of counsel would be of
service to the parties and the court “by sharpening the issues in the case, shaping
the examination of witnesses, and thus shortening the trial and assisting in a just
determination.” The District Court may also inquire into whether the plaintiff has
made any effort to secure private counsel.
DeJesus v. Lewis, 14 F.4th 1182, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion and—after applying the factors set forth
above—concludes that appointed counsel is not justified. Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to
litigate his case, including filing pleadings and motions sufficiently setting out his contentions to
allow review by this Court. Plaintiff’s case is not complex. Additionally, at this early stage in the
litigation, it is unclear if the case will proceed to trial. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that
counsel will be needed for the presentation of evidence or cross examination of witnesses. Plaintiff,
“like any other litigant[], undoubtedly would [be] helped by the assistance of a lawyer, but [his]
case is not so unusual” that appointed counsel is necessary. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320
(11th Cir. 1999).
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED. Should it later
become apparent that legal assistance is required to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff to file additional requests for counsel.
II. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
As noted above, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
However, even if a prisoner is allowed to proceed IFP, he must pay the full amount of the $350.00
filing fee in installments based on funds in the prisoner’s account. When a prisoner has funds in
his account, he must pay an initial partial filing fee of twenty percent of the greater of (1) the
average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account, or (2) the average monthly balance in the
prisoner’s account for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
A review of Plaintiff’s account certification shows his average monthly deposits for the
two and a half months that he was incarcerated before he filed the complaint equaled $168.19.
(Doc. 2-1, at 2-17). Twenty percent of $168.19 is $33.64. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that
Plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee of $33.64.
Following payment of the initial partial filing fee, money will be deducted from Plaintiff’s
account until the filing fee ($350.00) is paid in full as set forth in § 1915(b) and explained below.
It is accordingly DIRECTED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this ORDER to the
business manager of the facility in which Plaintiff is incarcerated so that withdrawals from his
account may commence as payment towards the filing fee. The district court’s filing fee is not
refundable, regardless of the outcome of the case, and must therefore be paid in full even if the
Plaintiff’s complaint (or any part thereof) is dismissed prior to service.
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 5

4
A. Directions to Plaintiff’s Custodian
It is ORDERED that the warden of the institution wherein Plaintiff is incarcerated, or the
sheriff of any county wherein he is held in custody, and any successor custodians, each month
cause to be remitted to the Clerk of this Court twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s
income credited to Plaintiff’s account at said institution until the $350.00 filing fee has been paid
in full. In accordance with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Plaintiff’s
custodian is hereby authorized to forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the Clerk of
Court each month until the filing fee is paid in full, provided the amount in the account exceeds
$10.00. It is further ORDERED that collection of monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund
account shall continue until the entire $350.00 has been collected, notwithstanding the dismissal
of Plaintiff’s lawsuit or the granting of judgment against him prior to the collection of the full
filing fee.
B. Plaintiff’s Obligations Upon Release
Plaintiff should keep in mind that his release from incarceration/detention does not release
him from his obligation to pay the installments incurred while he was in custody. Plaintiff remains
obligated to pay those installments justified by the income in his prisoner trust account while he
was detained. If Plaintiff fails to remit such payments, the Court authorizes collection from
Plaintiff of any balance due on these payments by any means permitted by law. Plaintiff’s
Complaint may be dismissed if he is able to make payments but fails to do so or if he otherwise
fails to comply with the provisions of the PLRA.
III. Conclusion
In conclusion, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED, but his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay an initial
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 5

5
partial filing fee of $33.64. While Plaintiff’s custodian is ordered to make subsequent payments
on Plaintiff’s behalf, Plaintiff should note that it is HIS RESPONSIBLITY to pay the initial
partial filing fee. Thus, Plaintiff must make arrangements with the appropriate official to ensure
that the initial partial filing fee is paid in accordance with this Order. Plaintiff shall have
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date shown on this Order to pay the required initial partial
filing fee to the Clerk of Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s custodian shall remit monthly payments as
set forth above.
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff shall keep the Court informed of any future address change and his failure to do so may
result in the dismissal of this action. There will be no service of process in this case upon any
Defendant until further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January, 2026.
s/ ALFREDA L. SHEPPARD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00484-MTT-ALS Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 5