Mejia v. Ramirez et al
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DONALD MEJIA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MARIA D RAMIREZ, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-238
§
§
§
§
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff filed this § 1983 lawsuit on June 2, 2014, alleging that Defendants
violated his constitutional rights in a number of ways, namely that he was denied
nutritious meals, denied recreation, and denied showers, resulting in loss of weight and
depression (D.E. 1). Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E.
6), and pending is his motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 7).
In Bounds v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner's constitutional right of
access to the courts requires that the access be meaningful; that is, prison officials must
provide pro se litigants with writing materials, access to the law library, or other forms of
legal assistance. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 829 (1977). There is, however, no
constitutional right to appointment of counsel in civil rights cases.
Akasike v.
Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994); Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266
(5th Cir. 1982). Further, Bounds did not create a "free-standing right to a law
library or legal assistance." Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). It is
1/3
within the court's discretion to appoint counsel, unless the case presents
"exceptional circumstances," thus requiring the appointment.
28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).
A number of factors should be examined when determining whether to
appoint counsel. Jackson v. Dallas Police Department, 811 F.2d 260, 261-62 (5th
Cir. 1986) (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982)). The first is
the type and complexity of the case. Id. This case is not complex. According to
Plaintiff, his health has suffered because he has been denied nutritious meals, not
allowed regular exercise, and denied showers.
Though serious, plaintiff’s
allegations are not complex.
The second and third factors are whether the plaintiff is in a position to
adequately investigate and present his case. Id. Plaintiff’s pleadings demonstrate
he is reasonably articulate and intelligent. He has clearly set forth his claims.
Plaintiff appears, at this early stage of the case, to be in a position to adequately
investigate and present his case.
The fourth factor which should be examined is whether the evidence will
consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the
presentation of evidence and in cross-examination. Id. Examination of this factor
2/3
is premature because the case has not yet been set for trial. In fact, the case has
yet to be screened – an evidentiary hearing is not scheduled until July 29, 2014.1
Finally, there is no indication that appointed counsel would aid in the
efficient and equitable disposition of the case. The Court has the authority to
award attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiff is not
prohibited from hiring an attorney on a contingent-fee arrangement. Plaintiff's
motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 7) is denied without prejudice at this
time. This order will be sua sponte reexamined as the case proceeds.
ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2014.
___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
The Initial Partial Filing Fee and Collection Order directed Plaintiff not to file motions for appointment of counsel
until after his claims were screened (D.E. 6).
3/3
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?