Case: 15-14608 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14608
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-01158-WMA
DIANE HILLIARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(October 25, 2016)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Diane Hilliard appeals pro se the dismissal of her action against the
Alabama Department of Transportation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hilliard challenges
Case: 15-14608 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 2 of 3
the order dismissing her complaint sua sponte, but we previously ruled that her
appeal of that order was untimely. Hilliard also challenges the denial of her
motions for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and for the
appointment of counsel. We affirm.
The Department argues that Hilliard’s motion for an extension of time
should be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
59, but we disagree. Hilliard did not mention the judgment of dismissal in her
motion. Hilliard requested “the [district] court to extend the time for filing of her
Amended Complaint and [for her] to acquire legal counsel.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hilliard’s
motion for an extension of time. A plaintiff may obtain an extension of time “after
the time has expired if [she] failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Hilliard filed her motion on September 16, 2015, 29 days after
the district court dismissed her action against the Department. Although Hilliard
requested additional time to retain counsel to help her “perfect and pursue her . . .
claims,” she failed to explain her delay in hiring counsel after being warned two
months earlier that her complaint was fatally defective.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Hilliard’s
motion for the appointment of counsel. “Appointment of counsel in civil cases is
. . . a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as the presence of
2
Case: 15-14608 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 3 of 3
facts and legal issues which are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of
a trained practitioner.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal
quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). “The key is whether the pro se
litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position in the
court.” Id. Hilliard’s complaint of discrimination based on gender and race was not
novel or complex.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Hilliard’s action against the Department.
3