Jarvis v. Hall, in Official Capacity and Successor et al

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING Appointment of Counsel re 52 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Thaddeus L. Jarvis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 1/11/2022. (cb)

Case: 4:20-cv-00193-NBB-JMV Doc #: 65 Filed: 01/11/22 1 of 3 PageID #: 249

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
THADDEUS L. JARVIS
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:20CV193-NBB-JMV

COMMISSIONER PELICIA HALL, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
The pro se plaintiff, Thaddeus L. Jarvis, seeks appointment of counsel to represent him in this
case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant motion is not well taken and should be denied.
There is no automatic right to counsel in a § 1983 case. Wright v. Dallas County Sheriff’s
Department, 660 F.2d 623, 625-26 (5th Cir. 1981); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).
Unless there are “exceptional circumstances,” a district court is not required to appoint counsel to
represent indigent plaintiffs in a civil action. Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982); see
also, Feist v. Jefferson County Commissioners Court, 778 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1985). 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.

Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691
F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982).

Case: 4:20-cv-00193-NBB-JMV Doc #: 65 Filed: 01/11/22 2 of 3 PageID #: 250

The court should make specific findings on each of the four Ulmer factors. Jackson v. Dallas
Police Dept., 811 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 1986). The first factor is the type and complexity of the case.
A thorough, liberal review and construction of the pleadings reveals that there are no complex issues
to be decided in the present case. The plaintiff claims that the defendants housed him in
unconstitutionally harsh conditions for seven days and used excessive force against him. The claims
involve “matters that happened to [the plaintiff] personally,” and there is nothing to suggest that he
might not be able to represent himself adequately. See Branum v. Chambless, 250 Fed. Appx. 99,
104, 2007 WL 2909620, at 3 (Oct. 8, 2007).
The court must also consider whether the indigent plaintiff is capable of adequately presenting
his case without the assistance of counsel. The plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to file competent
pleadings with this court, including the instant motion for appointment of counsel and the complaint
itself. Hence, this factor does not weigh in favor of appointment of counsel.
Ulmer further directs that the court determine whether the plaintiff is in a position to
adequately investigate the case. The plaintiff’s incarceration does not necessarily impede the
plaintiff’s ability to adequately investigate his case. Feist v. Jefferson County Com’rs Court, 778 F.2d
250, 252-53 (5th Cir. 1985). In the present circumstances, the court finds that the plaintiff has not
been unduly prejudiced by his incarceration. In a prisoner’s § 1983 case such as this, discovery is
limited. The court routinely requires the defendants to provide the plaintiff a copy of the documents
relevant to this case. Therefore, no further investigation of the case through the discovery process
will be allowed, except upon motion and a showing of good cause, and the appointment of counsel
would not aid plaintiff in this aspect of his case.

-2-

Case: 4:20-cv-00193-NBB-JMV Doc #: 65 Filed: 01/11/22 3 of 3 PageID #: 251

Finally, the facts of this case do not call for extraordinary skills in cross-examination or the
presentation of evidence. After a review of the plaintiff’s pleadings, the court concludes that the
plaintiff is sufficiently capable of presenting his claims without the assistance of an attorney. There
are no exceptional circumstances in this case which warrant the appointment of counsel because the
crucial issues at trial will be the resolution of factual questions, such as the circumstances surrounding
the alleged violation, and application of the prevailing law. The issues in this case would not be
substantially sharpened by appointment of counsel to represent plaintiff, and the court is confident that
a just determination will be reached even though the plaintiff is required to proceed pro se.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 11th day of January, 2022.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-