Young v. LeBlanc et al
Filing
31
ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the 23 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on September 18, 2018. (mp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL YOUNG
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-6329
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.
SECTION “B”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
The plaintiff, Michael Young, filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Rec. Doc.
No. 23) in which he requested appointment of counsel to assist him in this pro se and in forma
pauperis proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Young filed suit against the defendants,
Secretary James LeBlanc, Warden Sandy McCain, Warden Robert Tanner, Assistant Warden
Keith Bickham, Assistant Warden Beverly Kelly, Colonel Craig Kennedy, Major Jeff Williams,
Major Tim Crawford, Captain Ronnie Seal, Gina Todd, Amy Stogner, and Officer Jules Hebert
alleging that the defendants have failed to provide him with adequate protection or transfer him to
another facility which has left him prone to both physical and sexual assault at the B.B. “Sixty”
Rayburn Correctional Center.
On July 19, 2018, the Court issued an Order (Rec. Doc. No. 24) for Young to explain in
writing why he seeks the assistance of counsel and what efforts he made to locate counsel on his
own. Young filed a Response (Rec. Doc. No. 26) indicating that he contacted one law firm to
obtain assistance to no avail and again requests that counsel be appointed.
A federal district court should only appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff 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 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). Young’s case is not an exceptional one under these factors and presents no
circumstances that would require appointment of counsel.
The issues in this case are not complex and Young has demonstrated his ability to more
than adequately understand and convey the facts of his case without assistance of counsel. 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). While
Young may not be trained in the law, he has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to express his factual
and legal arguments and to understand the issues involved in his case, even filing motions for
injunctive relief and seeking review of other orders. The record in this case and Young’s ability
to present his case and understand the proceedings do not demonstrate a need for the appointment
of counsel under the foregoing precedent. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Grandpre’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Rec. Doc. No.
23) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of September, 2018.
____________________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?