Scott v. Pfizer Pharmaceutical

Filing 17

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
TYLER DIVISION
HARRIL GLEN SCOTT

§

Vs.

§

PFIZER PHARMACEUTICAL

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11CV276

ORDER

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
Cir.1993).
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.
1

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

2