Adams v. Energy Transfer Partners et al
Filing
11
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
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
VS.
§
§
ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, et al, §
§
Defendants.
§
December 09, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
ANITA S ADAMS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-400
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff filed this action on September 21, 2016, alleging she was terminated from
her employment with Defendant in violation of federal law (D.E. 1).
Pending is
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 7). The motion is denied without
prejudice.
No constitutional right to appointment of counsel exists in civil cases. Wendell v.
Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1998); Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th
Cir. 1994).
A district court is not required to appoint counsel unless “exceptional
circumstances” exist. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Jackson v.
Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986)). Among the factors that the
Court should consider are: "(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
1/2
equitable disposition of the case.” Jackson, 811 F.2d at 262 (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Regarding the first factor, Plaintiff’s claims do not appear at this stage to be
complex. Plaintiff provided very little detail in her complaint, but she does allege that
she was fired in retaliation her whistle-blowing activities and complaints about payroll
indiscretions and financial reconciliation practices of Defendant (D.E.1).
The second and third factors are whether the Plaintiff is in a position to adequately
investigate and present her case. Based on her complaint and presentation during the
December 9, 2016, hearing, Plaintiff appeared to be articulate and intelligent.
She
appeared to understand the filing and discovery procedures.
The fourth factor requires an examination of whether the evidence will consist in
large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence.
Plaintiff’s action has not been scheduled for trial; consequently, at this time, the
appointment of counsel for trial would be premature. Finally, there is no indication that
appointing counsel would aid in the efficient and equitable disposition of the case.
No “exceptional circumstances” exist that warrant the appointment of counsel at
this time. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 7) is denied without
prejudice, subject to renewal should counsel be warranted at a later date.
ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2016.
___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2/2
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?