Pooler v. Graves et al

Filing 31

RULING denying 29 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 10/28/2011. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TERRY POOLER (#118165)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

SHERIFF WILLIE GRAVES, ET AL

NUMBER 10-260-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel.
Pro

Record document number 29.
se

plaintiff,

an

inmate

currently

confined

at

Hunt

Correctional Center, St. Gabriel, Louisiana, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Livingston Parish Sheriff
Willie

Graves,

deputy.1

deputy

Brat

Savan

and

an

unidentified

female

Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his
constitutional rights.
Plaintiff’s
complex.
claim.

complaint

is

neither

factually

nor

legally

Plaintiff succinctly set out the factual basis for his

Liberally construed, the plaintiff alleged that on August

11, 2009, while confined in the Livingston Parish Prison, he
reported told deputies that he had a fever and felt abnormal and
needed medical treatment. Plaintiff alleged that the female deputy
gave him orange juice and told him to go to bed.

1

Plaintiff alleged

Savan and the unidentified female deputy were not served
with the summons and complaint.

that approximately 20 minutes later, he blacked out and fell from
his bed, injuring his head, neck and face.

Plaintiff alleged that

the deputies ignored him and allowed him to lay on the floor for
four hours before transporting him to the hospital.

Plaintiff

alleged that he was diagnosed with suffering from pneumonia and
hepatitis C.
A

prison

official

may

be

held

liable

under

the

Eighth

Amendment for acting with deliberate indifference to an

inmate's

health

faces

or

safety

only

if

he

knows

that

the

inmate

a

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by
failing to take reasonable steps to abate it.
511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994).

Farmer v. Brennan,

The official must both be

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must draw the
inference.

Id.

Plaintiff appears capable of adequately investigating his
case.

He filed a factually detailed complaint setting forth

clearly

and

concisely

the

details

of

the

alleged

incidents.

Appointment of counsel would likely be of some benefit to the
plaintiff, but it would do little to assist in the examination of
the witnesses or shaping the issues for trial.
Consideration of the factors set forth in Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 211 (5th Cir. 1982), does not support a finding that
appointment of counsel for the plaintiff is either required or
warranted.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 28, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE