Woods v. Stancil

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 3 Motion for Speedy Trial; denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 9/25/2017. (crt,Williams, L)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

c

SECTION P

CARLOS WOODS #42821-037,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-00800

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE DRELL.

M A STANCIL,
Defendant

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court are a Motion for Speedy Trial (Doc. 3) and a Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 6) filed by pro se plaintiff Carlos Woods (“Woods”).
Woods filed a pro se deficient “complaint” against Warden M.A. Stancil requesting a
“preliminary injunction for relief from isolation confinement.” (Doc. 1).
I.

Motion for Speedy Trial
Woods filed a Motion for Speedy Trial (Doc. 3) alleging that he has not been

served criminal information or indictment.

This suit is a civil complaint for a

preliminary injunction. Woods is applying criminal procedure for speedy trials to this
civil suit. The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., requires that a defendant
be brought to trial within 70 days of the filing of the indictment, or the date the
defendant appears before a judicial officer in the court in which the charge is pending,
whichever is later. To the extent Woods is asking for a speedy trial, Woods’s motion
for speedy trial is denied as the Speedy Trial Act applies to criminal matters only. To
the extent Woods is asking for an expedited trial, the court has not yet reviewed this
case and determined whether a trial is warranted.
1

II.

Request for Appointment of Counsel
Congress has not specifically authorized courts to appoint counsel for plaintiffs

proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), federal courts are
given the power to request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff. This
language is not significantly different from that of former section 1915(d). In Mallard
v. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist. Of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-302 (1989), the
United States Supreme Court held that federal courts can only request that an
attorney represent a person unable to employ counsel, because federal courts are not
empowered under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) to make compulsory appointments.
“Generally speaking, no right to counsel exists in § 1983 actions [but]
appointment of counsel should be made as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) where
‘exceptional circumstances’ are present.” Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 412 (5th
Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted).
Even when a plaintiff has nonfrivolous § 1983 claims, a “trial court is not
required to appoint counsel ... unless the case presents exceptional circumstances.”
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Jackson v. Cain, 864
F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1989). Though the Fifth Circuit has declined to articulate
a “comprehensive definition of exceptional circumstances,” Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213
(quoting Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir.1982)), the court has supplied
factors that a district court should consider in determining whether exceptional
circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel, including:
1. the type and complexity of the case;
2. the petitioner's ability to present and investigate his case;
2

3. the presence of evidence which largely consists of conflicting
testimony so as to require skill in presentation of evidence and in crossexamination; and
4. the likelihood that appointment will benefit the petitioner, the court,
and the defendants by shortening the trial and assisting in just
determination.
Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir.2015), citing Parker v. Carpenter,
978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Additionally, a court may consider whether a plaintiff has demonstrated the inability
to secure private counsel. See Jackson, 864 F.2d. at 1242; Ulmer, 91 F.2d. at 213.
Here, Woods requests appointment of counsel after filing a pro se complaint
requesting a preliminary injunction and motion for speedy trial. (Doc. 6). This case
reveals no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at this time.
The legal issues involve the application of well-established and long-standing
principles, and the factual issues are simple. No exceptional skill will be necessary
to present the case at trial. While the Court has no specific information regarding
Woods’s abilities, he has demonstrated that he is capable of drafting a complaint and
a motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Woods’s motion for speedy trial (Doc. 3) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Woods’s motion for appointment of counsel
(Doc. 6) is DENIED.

3

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this
25th
_______ day of September, 2017.
______________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge

4