McFerrin v. Patel et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dperez, 3)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION ERVIN LEE MCFERRIN, Plaintiff, VS. MICHELLE LASTRAPES, et al, Defendants. November 29, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-274 § § § § ORDER State inmate Ervin Lee McFerrin (TDCJ #01607758) has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that the defendants provided him with Constitutionally deficient medical treatment. McFerrin has filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 22). That motion is denied for the reasons set forth briefly below. There is no automatic constitutional right to appointment of counsel in civil rights cases. Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007). Where a litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, the most a court can do is “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see also Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989) (holding that the statute governing in forma pauperis cases does not authorize “coercive appointments of counsel” for indigent litigants in civil cases). “An attorney should be appointed only if exceptional circumstances exist.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 581 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982)). In making that determination, the Court considers the case’s type and complexity, the litigant’s ability to 1/2 investigate and present his claims, and the level of skill required to present the evidence. Baranowski, 486 F.3d at 126. This case does not, as yet, present any exceptional circumstances necessitating the appointment of counsel. McFerrin has clearly articulated his claims; the Texas Attorney General has provided the Court and McFerrin with a Martinez report containing the pertinent medical records; and the legal and factual issues presented by the case are not extraordinarily complex. The court concludes that it is unnecessary to locate counsel for McFerrin at this time and will deny his motion for the appointment of counsel. It is therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 22) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the parties. SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 29th day of November, 2017. ___________________________________ George C. Hanks Jr. United States District 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?