Scott v. Pfizer Pharmaceutical
ORDER denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Judith K. Guthrie on 01/04/12. cc:pltf 1-05-12 (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HARRIL GLEN SCOTT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11CV276
On June 23, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (document #5). The case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
matters in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in a
civil case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), judges have the authority to appoint counsel for an
indigent party in any suit. This authority, however, is discretionary and is not often invoked. Cupit
v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Counsel will not be appointed absent “exceptional
circumstances,” which are dependent on the type and complexity of the case and the abilities of the
individual pursuing that case. Id; see also Pennington v. Tex. Highway Dep’t, 990 F.2d 627 (5th
Having carefully reviewed the Complaint, the undersigned is of the opinion that the case is
not unduly complicated requiring the appointment of counsel. See Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405
(5th Cir. 1985); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff has not
shown exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (document #5) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4
day of January, 2012.
JUDITH K. GUTHRIE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?