Jamison v. Journey's

Filing 4

ORDER denying 1 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 12/04/2014. (lec)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
CARMELLE JAMISON
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:14-cv-170-SA-JMV

JOURNEY’S

DEFENDANT
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

This matter is before the court on the motion [1] of the pro se Plaintiff for appointment of
counsel to represent her in the above-styled employment discrimination action. Having duly
considered the motion, the court finds the motion is not well taken and should be denied.
“In a civil case, an attorney should be appointed only under exceptional circumstances.”
Williams v. Ballard, 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264,
266 (5th Cir. 1982) (unless there are “exceptional circumstances,” a district court is not required
to appoint counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in a civil action). The court may base a
decision whether to appoint counsel on many factors, including:
(1) the type and complexity of the case;
(2) the indigent's ability adequately to present and investigate his case;
(3) the presence of evidence which largely consists of conflicting testimony so as to
require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination of witnesses; and
(4) the likelihood that appointment will benefit the indigent, the court, and the
Defendants by shortening the trial and assisting in just determination.
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982). As directed by the Fifth Circuit in
Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept., this court should make specific findings on each of the Ulmer
factors rather than deciding the motion in a conclusory manner. 811 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir.
1986)
The first factor is the type and complexity of the case. This is an employment
discrimination action wherein the Plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully terminated because of her

sex, her age, her race, her religion, her national origin, her disability due to heart condition and
because she was pregnant at the time of termination. Such an action, though making numerous
charges, is not so complex as to require appointment of counsel. Additionally, the fact there is
only one defendant further reduces the danger that the number of parties to the action might
complicate otherwise straightforward issues.
Next, the court should consider whether the indigent plaintiff is capable of adequately
presenting and investigating her case without the assistance of counsel. By the filing of the
instant motion and the complaint, Plaintiff has demonstrated her ability to adequately present
issues and otherwise communicate information to the court. Additionally, though she alleges
generally she has a heart condition, Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific condition or
circumstance that would prevent her from adequately investigating her claim.
There has been no showing on this record with regard to the third factor.
Finally, there are no “exceptional circumstances” which warrant appointment of counsel
in this case. Plaintiff has made no showing that counsel is necessary to present meritorious
issues, and the court is confident a just determination will be reached even though Plaintiff is
required to proceed pro se.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel is hereby DENIED. But, the court reserves the right to make a limited appointment of
counsel for purposes of the Case Management Conference if, at the appropriate time, the court
determines the same is warranted
SO ORDERED this, the 4th day of December, 2014.
/s/Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE