Broussard v. Brown et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 7 Motion for Court Assistance in Obtaining Information; denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 04/30/2014. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JEFFERY A. BROUSSARD
LA. DOC #613311
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-0720
SECTION P
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

IKE BROWN, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Jeffery A. Broussard, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on March 28, 2014. Plaintiff is an inmate in the
custody of Louisiana’s Department of Corrections; he is incarcerated at the Louisiana State
Penitentiary, Angola. Plaintiff complains that he was the victim of excessive force perpetrated by
corrections and law enforcement officials while he was incarcerated at the Morehouse Parish Jail.
He sued these officials praying for compensatory damages in the amount of $350,000. While
this matter was pending initial review, plaintiff filed a pair of pro se motions.
In the first motion filed on April 25, 2014, plaintiff sought addresses for the LSU Health
Hospital Trauma Center in Shreveport, the Morehouse Parish Jail, and, the Fourth Judicial
District Court in Bastrop. According to plaintiff, he needs these mailing addresses so that he may
request information relative to his pending litigation. [Doc. 7] In the second motion which was
also filed on April 25, 2014, plaintiff requested appointment of attorney Ransdell J. Keene of
Shreveport to assist him in litigating this civil action. [Doc. 8]
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he lacks the ability to obtain the addresses of the LSU
Health Hospital, the Morehouse Parish Jail, and the Fourth Judicial District Court either from

family and friends or by utilizing the resources available at the Louisiana State Penitentiary.
Likewise, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the appointment of counsel.
Congress has not specifically authorized courts to appoint counsel for plaintiffs proceeding under
42 U.S.C. §1983. “Generally no right to counsel exists in §1983 actions [but] appointment of
counsel should be made as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1915 where ‘exceptional circumstances’ are
present.” Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d. 405 (5th Cir. 1985). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1),
federal courts are given the power to request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff. In
the case of Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District, 490 U.S. 296,
301-302, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1818, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (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(e)(1) to make compulsory
appointments.
Although courts can request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff, the court is
not required to make this request in the absence of “exceptional circumstances.” See Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d. 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982) and Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d. 1235, 1242 (5th
Cir. 1989). No precise definition of “exceptional circumstances” is available, but the United
States Courts of Appeal have provided a litany of factors for lower courts to consider in
determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the court request that counsel assist him in
his suit. It is proper for the court to consider the following factors: the type and complexity of
the case; the plaintiff’s ability to adequately present and investigate his case; the presence of
evidence which largely consists of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in presentation of
evidence and cross-examination; and the likelihood that appointment will benefit the petitioner,
2

the court, and the defendants by “shortening the trial and assisting in just determination.” See
Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d. 190 (5th Cir. 1992), citing Murphy v. Kellar, 950 F.2d. at 293,
n.14; see also Ulmer, 691 F.2d. at 213, and Jackson, 864 F.2d. at 1242. Additionally, a court may
consider whether a plaintiff has demonstrated the inability to secure private counsel on his own
behalf. See Jackson, 864 F.2d. at 1242; Ulmer, 691 F.2d. at 213. Plaintiff is not excused from
trying to procure counsel for himself. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is unable to secure
representation from an attorney or pro bono organization.
Plaintiff has managed to file his original complaint setting forth his cause of action
against the named defendants. No special legal knowledge is required of plaintiff herein.
Plaintiff’s claims are not atypical of those often asserted in civil rights litigation and are not
complex. At this stage of the proceedings he need not be versed in the law so long as he can
recite the facts and his demands with sufficient clarity, and that he has done so far.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel should be denied as the
circumstances presented herein are not “exceptional” so as to warrant the appointment of
counsel.
ORDER
Therefore, plaintiff’s Motion seeking to obtain various addresses [Doc. 7], is DENIED; and,
Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 8] is likewise DENIED.
In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, April 30, 2014.

____________________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3