Karl White v. State Attorney ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 15, 2008
No. 07-14349 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-60056-CV-CMA
KARL WHITE,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all
other similarly situated plaintiffs,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE ATTORNEY,
Michael J. Statz
KENNETH FARNSWORTH,
Assistant State Attorney
HOWARD FINKELSTEIN,
Public Defender
MADELINE TORRES,
Assistant Public Defender
ANDREW J. SMALLMAN,
Assistant Public Defender, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 15, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Karl White appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice of his civil
complaint for failure to serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(m). We affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal without prejudice of a
complaint for failure to serve a defendant under Rule 4(m). Lepone-Dempsey v.
Carroll County Comm’r, 476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). The record is
undisputed that White did not serve the defendants under Rule 4(m), and in his
brief, White makes no argument that the district court erred in its application of the
Rule. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
White’s argument that his motion for court-appointed counsel should have
been granted also fails. To the extent White is seeking reconsideration of our
order, his request is untimely because it was filed more than 21 days after this
Court denied his motion for court-appointed counsel. 11th Cir. R. 27-2. To the
2
extent White is challenging the denial of his motion by the district court, his
argument fails because his complaint was not novel or complex. “Court
appointment of counsel in civil cases is warranted only in ‘exceptional
circumstances,’ and whether such circumstances exist is also committed to district
court discretion.” Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting
Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993)). “The key is whether the pro
se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position in the
court.” Kilgo, 983 F.2d at 193. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
We also deny White’s motion to reconsider his request to file a supplemental
brief.
The dismissal of White’s complaint is
AFFIRMED.
3