Morrison v. Rogers et al

Filing 18

Ruling denying 15 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Desiree Morrison. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on 2/8/2012. (DCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DESIREE’ MORRISON (#300195)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

JIM ROGERS, ET AL

NUMBER 11-585-JJB-DLD

RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Record
document number 15.
Pro se plaintiff, an inmate confined at Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women,
St. Gabriel, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections Secretary James LeBlanc, Warden Jim
Rogers and Regional Warden Howard Prince. Plaintiff alleged that she has been prohibited
from receiving religious compact discs (hereinafter “CDs”) in violation of her First
Amendment rights.
Plaintiff’s complaint is neither factually nor legally complex. Plaintiff succinctly set
out the factual basis for her claim. Liberally construed, the plaintiff alleged that the
defendants interfered with her ability to obtain religious compact discs in violation of her
First Amendment rights.
Conflicts do arise between a prisoner's exercise of her religious freedom and
genuine concerns of day-to-day prison administration. In determining whether a prison
regulation impinges on an inmate's constitutional rights, the court must consider four factors
which were set out in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.78, 107 S.Ct. 2254 (1987). These are: (1)

whether the regulation has a logical connection to the legitimate government interests
invoked to satisfy it, (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the rights that
remain open to the inmate, (3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted
constitutional rights will have on other inmates, guards and prison resources, and (4) the
presence or absence of ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoner's rights at
a de minimis cost to valid penological interests.
Plaintiff appears capable of adequately investigating her case. She filed a factually
detailed complaint setting forth clearly and concisely the details of the alleged incident.
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.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 8, 2012.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOCIA L. DALBY