Stanford et al v. Gates et al

Filing 13

OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL denying #3 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B Libby) Parties notified.(RochelleLimon, 2)

Case 2:22-cv-00275 Document 13 Filed on 01/17/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JOSEPH A. STANFORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BILL GATES, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

January 17, 2023
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00275

OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed this civil action
alleging nonsensical and incoherent claims against Bill Gates and other corporate
defendants. The undersigned has submitted a written recommendation to dismiss to the
presiding United States District Judge. (DE. 11). Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for
appointment of counsel. (D.E. 3). 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.
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)
1/2

Case 2:22-cv-00275 Document 13 Filed on 01/17/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

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.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel, (D.E. 3), is
DENIED.
ORDERED on January 17, 2023.

_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge

2/2