Jackson v. Gutierrez et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying without prejudice 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 10 Motion to Supplement Complaint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby) Parties notified.(amireles, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
PHILLIP JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
DAVID GUTIERREZ, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 14, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-17

ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Complaint (D.E. 10) and Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (D.E. 9).
Plaintiff Phillip Jackson, a Texas inmate appearing pro se, requests the Court to
consider the attachments to the pending motion as part of his civil rights complaint.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Complaint (D.E. 10) is GRANTED. The undersigned
has considered the attachments and has recommended to the United States District Judge
that the case be retained. Service on Defendant David Gutierrez in his official capacity
has been ordered.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (D.E.
9) is DENIED without prejudice. No constitutional right to appointment of counsel
exists in civil rights cases. See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007);
Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). A district court is
not required to appoint counsel unless “‘exceptional circumstances’” exist. Cupit v.
1/2

Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d
260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). The Fifth Circuit has enunciated several factors
that the Court should consider in determining whether to appoint counsel:
(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the
indigent is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3)
whether the indigent is in a position to investigate adequately
the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large
part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the
presentation of evidence. The court should also consider
whether appointed counsel would aid in the efficient and
equitable disposition of the case.
Jackson, 811 F.2d at 262 (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.
1982)); accord Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997). Upon careful
consideration of the factors set forth in Jackson, the Court finds that appointment of
counsel is not warranted at this time. However, if Plaintiff’s case proceeds to trial, or if
the circumstances otherwise warrant appointing counsel, the undersigned will sua sponte
reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2016.
___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge

2/2