Rhodes v. Gusman et al

Filing 55

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that 53 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and 54 Objections are DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 50 ORDER AND REASONS denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel is AFFIRMED. FURTHER ORDERED THAT the submission date for 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment is Continued to 6/6/2012 before Judge Susie Morgan. If plaintiff opposes Motion for Summary Judgment, he must file a memorandum in opposition no later than 5/29/2012. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/2/2012.(clm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIE RHODES IV

CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,
VERSUS

No. 11-1530

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

SECTION “E”

Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is an appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying the motion for
appointment of counsel filed by the pro se Plaintiff, Willie Rhodes IV.1 For the reasons stated
below, the Magistrate Judge’s order is AFFIRMED.
Background
In this suit, Plaintiff, Willie Rhodes, Jr., sets forth claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
deliberate indifference and inadequate medical care during his incarceration at Orleans Parish
Prison. On December 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion
for Appointment of Counsel”).2 On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court,
addressed to District Judge Englehardt, which contained a request for a response to the Motion for
Appointment of Counsel.3 On April 13, 2011, Magistrate Judge Roby entered an Order and Reasons

1

R. Doc. 53 (Third Request for Appointment of Counsel) and R. Doc. 54 (Objection to the Magistrate’s

2

R. Doc. 21.

3

R. Doc. 51.

Ruling).

denying the Motion for Appointment of Counsel.4 On April 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Third Request
for Appointment of Counsel (the “Third Request”).5 On April 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection
to the Magistrate’s Ruling (the “Objection”).6 Through the Third Request and the Objection,
Plaintiff appeals the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the Motion for Appointment of Counsel.7 Plaintiff
alleges that he needs counsel to assist him with depositions and discovery, as well as presentation
of his case through medical records and witnesses.
Legal Analysis
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.2, non-dispositive
pretrial matters decided by a magistrate judge may be appealed to the district judge. The order of
a magistrate judge may be reversed only “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);
LR 72.2.
A district court should appoint counsel in a civil rights case only if presented with
exceptional circumstances. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997). A district court
should consider four factors in making this determination:
(1) the type and complexity of the case;
(2) whether the indigent litigant is capable of adequately presenting
his case;
(3) whether the litigant is in a position to investigate the case
adequately;
(4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting

4

R. Doc. 50.

5

R. Doc. 53.

6

R. Doc. 54.

7

R. Doc. 21.

2

testimony, thus requiring skill in presentation and cross-examination.
Id. (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.1982)). In this case, Magistrate Judge
Roby found:
although Rhodes’ medical condition 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.8
After reviewing the applicable law and Magistrate Judge Roby’s Order and Reasons, the Court finds
that Magistrate Judge Roby’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Third Request and the Objection are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s order denying the Motion for
Appointment of Counsel is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the submission date for Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment1 is continued to June 6, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, if Plaintiff opposes
the Motion for Summary Judgment, he must file a memorandum in opposition no later than May 29,
2012.
Signed, New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of May, 2012.

__________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
1

R. Doc. 50 at 2.
R. Doc. 43.

3