Epperson v. Chaisson et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 : IT IS ORDERED that pla's suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as set forth herein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/28/2011.(rll, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALLAN COOKE EPPERSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-381

PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, MARIA M.
CHAISSON, ATTORNEY, ET AL.

SECTION: R(3)

ORDER
The Court, having reviewed de novo the complaint, the
record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation,1 and plaintiff’s objections thereto,2 hereby
approves the Report and adopts it as its opinion.
Additionally, the Court denies plaintiff’s request for
appointment of counsel because that request is now moot.
Further, even if plaintiff’s request were not moot, section 1983
plaintiffs do not generally have a right to counsel, and the
court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent
plaintiff unless the case presents “exceptional circumstances.”
Dung Ngoc Huynh v. Baze, 317 Fed.Appx. 397, 399 (5th Cir. 2009).
In determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist, courts
consider “(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) the
plaintiff’s ability to adequately present and investigate the
case; (3) the presence of a majority of evidence consisting of
1

R. Doc. 11.

2

R. Doc. 12.

conflicting testimony which requires skill in the presentation of
evidence and in cross-examination; and (4) the likelihood that
the appointment will benefit the plaintiff, the defendants, and
the court by shortening the length of the trial and assisting in
a just determination of the case.”

Id. (citing Parker v.

Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992)).

Here, plaintiff’s

claims are not complex, he had the opportunity to present his
claims in a hearing before the Magistrate Judge, his claims do
not require extensive investigation, the evidence does not
consist of conflicting testimony, and the Court has disposed of
the case before trial.

Appointment of counsel would therefore be

unwarranted even if the issue were not moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s suit is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as frivolous, for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, and/or for seeking monetary damages
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for
appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of April, 2011.
28th

_____________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2