Rhodes v. Gusman et al

Filing 50

ORDER & REASONS denying pla's 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 4/13/2012. (rll, ) Modified on 4/13/2012 to edit doc type (rll, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIE RHODES IV

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-1530

MARLIN GUSMAN - MEDICAL
STAFF, DR. GORE, DR. GAUTREAUX,
DR. JOHNSON, NURSE BROOMFIELD,
NURSE FIELDS

SECTION “E”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Rec. Doc. No. 21) filed by the
pro se plaintiff, Willie Rhodes, IV. Rhodes alleges in the motion that he needs counsel to assist him
with the presentation of his case through medical records and witnesses. He does not indicate any
effort to retain counsel on his own.
A District Court should only appoint counsel in a civil rights case if the case presents
exceptional circumstances. Norton v. E.U. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997). The
plaintiff’s case is not one. The Court can consider the following factors when ruling on a request
for counsel in a § 1983 case: (a) the type and complexity of the case; (b) whether the indigent is
capable of presenting his case adequately; (c) whether he is in a position to investigate his case
adequately; and (d) 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. Parker v. Carpenter, 978
F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).

After reviewing Rhodes’s petition and receiving his testimony at the Spears Hearing, the
Court was inclined to appoint counsel to assist Rhodes in this matter due to the alleged seriousness
of his medical condition and treatment. The Court has been in contact with a private attorney and
a local law school clinic, and neither were able to accept the appointment. The Court has been
otherwise unable to locate counsel to appoint to this case. As such, the Court must deny Rhodes’s
request.
The Court also notes that, although Rhodes’s medical condition as alleged is serious, the case
itself is not so complicated that he will be unable to proceed without counsel. To the contrary,
although he may not be trained in the law, Rhodes has demonstrated his ability to more than
adequately express his claims and to understand the issues involved in his case. See Akasike v.
Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir.1994) (counsel should only be appointed under exceptional
circumstances in a civil rights case); see also Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 1998) (same);
Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 412 (5th Cir. 1985); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13
(5th Cir. 1982); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Rhodes’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Rec. Doc. No. 21)
is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of April, 2012.

____________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2