Joseph v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 12

RULING denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 5/28/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EUGENE JOSEPH (#171436)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL

NUMBER 13-229-BAJ-SCR

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

Record document number 9.

Pro se plaintiff, an inmate confined at Louisiana State
Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections Secretary James LeBlanc, Warden N. Burl Cain, Asst.
Warden

K.

Norris,

Dr.

J.

Collins,

Dr.

H.

MacMurdo,

Dr.

R.

Lavespere, emergency medical technician (“EMT”) J. R. Hornea, EMT
D. White, EMT B. Summers, field foreman J. Coleman, Classification
Officer Susanne Fairchild, and three unidentified emergency medical
technicians.

Plaintiff alleged that he suffers from lower back

pain and was diagnosed with spondylolysis.

Plaintiff alleged that

the defendants have been 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 he was

denied adequate medical treatment for his low back pain.

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.

To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of
medical care a prisoner must prove that the care was denied and
that the denial constituted “deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs.”

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285

(1976); Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1985).

Whether

the plaintiff received the treatment he felt he should have is not
the issue.

Estelle v. Gamble, supra; Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268

(5th Cir. 1981). Unsuccessful medical treatment does not give rise
to a § 1983 cause of action.

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 (5th

Cir. 1991), Johnson v. Treen, supra.

Negligence, neglect or

medical malpractice does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation.

Varnado, supra.

Plaintiff appears capable of adequately investigating his
case.

He 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.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 28, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE