Parfait v. Nurse Dominque et al

Filing 36

ORDER AND REASONS: denying 34 Motion to Appoint Counsel, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/19/2018. (am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HARRISON A. PARFAIT, JR.
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-738

NURSE DOMINQUE ET AL.

SECTION “R” (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Harrison A. Parfait, Jr.’s motion to appoint
counsel.1 The Court denies the motion because Parfait does not have a right
to appointed counsel in this case.

I.

BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2016, Parfait filed a complaint in the Western District

of Louisiana against defendants “Ms. Dominque” and “Ms. Renea,” nurses at
Terrebonne Parish Criminal Complex in Houma, Louisiana, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 2 He alleges that defendants provided inadequate medical care when
they refused to grant plaintiff access to a CPAP machine to treat his sleep
apnea.3 On January 1, 2017, the case was transferred to the Eastern District

1
2
3

R. Doc. 34.
R. Doc. 1.
Id.

of Louisiana and assigned to this Court. 4 On August 8, 2017, the Court
adopted the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations and dismissed
Parfait’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.5 On August
22, 2018, Parfait gave notice of appeal of the Court’s dismissal. 6 He now
seeks appointed counsel for his appeal. 7

II.

DISCUSSION
There is no general right to counsel in civil rights actions. McFaul v.

Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 581 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d
82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987)). A district court should not appoint counsel simply
because appointment of counsel would be beneficial. See Saulsberry v.
Edwards, No. 07–5395, 2007 WL 4365394, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 2007)
(citing Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997)). Instead, a
district court should appoint counsel only if exceptional circumstances exist.
See, e.g., McFaul, 684 F.3d at 86 (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209,
212 (5th Cir. 1982); Norton, 122 F.3d at 293).

4
5
6
7

R. Doc. 3.
R. Doc. 17.
R. Doc. 30.
R. Doc. 34.
2

District courts consider four factors when deciding whether
exceptional circumstances exist in a particular case: (1) the type and
complexity of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff is capable of adequately
presenting his case; (3) whether plaintiff is in a position to adequately
investigate the case; and (4) 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. Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213. None of the Ulmer factors
weighs in favor of appointing counsel in this case. Parfait’s claim is not
legally complex; his advocacy thus far demonstrates that he is capable of
adequately presenting and investigating the case; and nothing in the record
indicates that skill in presentation or cross-examination is required to
litigate his claims. Accordingly, the Court denies his motion to appoint
counsel.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is
DENIED.
19th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2018.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3