Wesley v. LaSalle Management et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying 96 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision re 95 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion Hearing. Signed by Judge Donald E Walter on 7/11/2019. (crt,Bray, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
SEAN WESLEY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1479

VERSUS

JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER

LASALLE MANAGEMENT, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is an “Appeal to Trial Judge” filed by pro se Plaintiff, Sean Wesley.
[Rec. Doc. 96].
Plaintiff previously filed a “Motion to Compel Discovery Responses with Sanctions”
against Defendant, LaSalle Management. [Rec. Doc. 85]. On June 18, 2019, a hearing was held
before Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes. [Rec. Doc. 95]. Judge Perez-Montes granted Plaintiff’s
motion to compel and denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. See id. During the hearing,
Plaintiff also made an oral motion for appointment of counsel, which was denied. See id.
A magistrate judge may rule on any non-dispositive pre-trial matter, except those
proscribed by statute.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

On appeal, a district judge “may

reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See id.
Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes’ decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law. Plaintiff sent his discovery request after the
deadline had passed. As such, the Defendant had a legitimate argument for refusing to comply
with Plaintiff’s discovery request, and sanctions are not justified.

Likewise, Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes’ decision to deny appointment of counsel is
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law. There is no absolute right to court-appointed
counsel in civil actions. See Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982).

A showing of

exceptional circumstances is required to warrant appointment of counsel. See Branch v. Cole,
686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). The record indicates that Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes
carefully considered the Plaintiff’s request, found that this case is not complex, and determined
that exceptional circumstances are not present to warrant appointment of counsel at this time.
See Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). The Court finds this decision to be
appropriate and consistent with the law regarding appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal of Magistrate Judge PerezMontes’ orders is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, this 11th day of July, 2019.

___________________________________
DONALD E. WALTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2