Saville v. Winston et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Appoint ; denying 22 Motion; granting 25 Motion to Stay.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
JIMMY D. SAVILLE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
WINSTON, et al,
Defendants.

January 16, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-80
§
§
§
§
ORDER

In its order to answer (Dkt. 16), the Court ordered the parties to disclose to each
other all information relevant to the claims or defenses of any party. The deadline for this
disclosure was 30 days after the date on which the defendants filed their answer. The lone
served defendant, James Denheim, has filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the plaintiff, Jimmy Saville, has requested and
received an extension of his deadline to respond to that motion (Dkt. 18 and Dkt. 23).
The motion to dismiss is not yet ripe, but three other motions are pending before
the Court.
a. The request for a stay of the disclosure deadline
The first motion is a request by Denheim for a stay of the disclosure deadline until
the Court has ruled on Denheim’s motion to dismiss. That motion (Dkt. 25) is
GRANTED. The disclosure deadline is stayed until further notice.

1/3

b. The request for counsel
The second motion is a request by Saville for the appointment of counsel. That
motion (Dkt. 21) is DENIED. 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 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. Saville has clearly articulated his claims, and the legal and
factual issues presented by the case have not displayed the extraordinary complexity that
would warrant a counsel appointment. The court concludes that it is unnecessary to locate
counsel for Saville at this time and will deny his motion for the appointment of counsel
without prejudice to refiling.

2/3

c. The request for a “rolling docket notification”
The third motion is a request by Saville for a “rolling docket notification,” which
the Court presumes is a request that the Court automatically provide a docket sheet to
Saville whenever something happens in his case. The Court will DENY this request (Dkt.
22). The Court provides copies of all of its orders by mail to all parties. In addition, as the
Court’s order to answer (Dkt. 16) states, the parties are to serve each other with copies of
any materials submitted for consideration by the Court. There is no indication that any
party has failed to comply with that service requirement.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 16th day of January, 2018.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

3/3