Ovesian v. Denton District Attorney's Office et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 16 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly C Priest Johnson on 5/24/2021. (rpc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JENSEN CASH OVESIAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENTON DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-168-ALM-KPJ
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jensen Cash Ovesian’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 16). Upon consideration, the Court finds the Motions (Dkt. 16) is hereby
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Original Complaint (Dkt. 1) against nine
Defendants. On March 22, 2021, before any Defendant filed an answer or otherwise responsive
pleading, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (styled as a “Second Amended Complaint”)
(Dkt. 7), which asserts claims against twenty-four Defendants. On April 29, 2021, before any
Defendant filed an answer or otherwise responsive pleading, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint (styled as a “Third Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. 10) against twenty -five Defendants.
Thereafter, Defendants Liberty Mutual, Farmers Insurance, and Wildridge respectively
filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12), a Motion for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. 14), and a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 15). On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 16), which requests counsel be appointed because, inter alia, Defendant
BBVA closed a bank account, Defendant Liberty Mutual’s Motion to Dismiss constitutes a
1
defamatory act, and “[t]wo defendant parties have referred to plaintiff[’]s grievances as personal
issues.” Id.
II.
ANALYSIS
There is no automatic right to appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding. See Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 – 13 (5th Cir. 1982). In civil cases, a federal district court has
discretion to appoint counsel if exceptional circumstances exist and if doing so would advance the
proper administration of justice. See id. Factors to consider include (1) the type and complexity of
the case, (2) whether an indigent party is capable of adequately presenting his case, (3) whether an
indigent party is in a position to adequately investigate the case, and (4) whether evidence will
consist, in large part, of conflicting testimony “so as to require the skill in the presentation of
evidence and in cross examination.” Id. at 213.
Having reviewed the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 10), Plaintiff’s lawsuit concerns
numerous discrete fact patterns, such as false reporting from a hospital, a church’s alleged misuse
of its nonprofit status to accrue financial benefits, inappropriate physical contact at a Costco a nd
Wal-Mart, and denial of public benefits from a Texas state agency.
The Court does not find the allegations and the claims asserted therefrom unduly
complicated such that appointment of counsel is necessary . See Carroll v. Rupert, No. 6:15-cv569, 2017 WL 11446977, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2017). Nor does the Court find that any other
exceptional circumstance exists. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 10) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As this litigation matures, the Court may consider
appointment of counsel if this case becomes complex and exceptional circumstances exist.
2
.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt.
16) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of May, 2021.
____________________________________
KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?