setting out these factors as relevant to the decision of whether to appoint counsel in a civil case
How later courts described this case
- setting out these factors as relevant to the decision of whether to appoint counsel in a civil case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JARRELL WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS No. 23-142
CLERK OF COURT ST. TAMMANY PARISH, ET AL. SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Jarrell Williams’ (“Williams”) “appeal
motion for attorney,”1 which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of
this Court’s order2 denying his motion for appointment of counsel. For the reasons
below, the Court denies the motion.
As the Court noted in its previous order, Williams alleges that the defendants
in this matter violated his First Amendment and human rights during a court
hearing in Louisiana state court.3 Williams filed a motion to appoint counsel.4 The
Court denied that motion, noting that there is no right to counsel in civil matters,
and that Williams had not identified “exceptional circumstances” warranting
appointing of counsel in this case.5 See Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d 130, 141 (5th
Cir. 2018).
1 R. Doc. No. 9. Attached to the motion is a form, completed by Williams, requesting
leave to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs. Williams
previously filed this form, R. Doc. No. 2, and was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, R. Doc. No. 3. Therefore, to the extent Williams’ motion requests leave to
proceed in this Court without prepaying fees or costs, the request is moot.
2 R. Doc. No. 8.
3 Id.
4 R. Doc. No. 7.
5 R. Doc. No. 8.
“Although the Fifth Circuit has noted that the Federal Rules do not recognize
a motion for reconsideration in haec verba, it has consistently recognized that such a
motion may challenge a judgment or order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
54(b), 59(e), or 60(b).” United States v. Martin, No. 17-179, 2022 WL 2986579, at *2
(E.D. La. July 28, 2022) (Brown, C.J.) (citing Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool
Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990)). “The general practice of this court has
been to evaluate motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards
that govern Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment.”6 Castrillo v. Am.
Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., No. 09–4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr.
5, 2010) (Vance, J.) (citations omitted).7 Rule 59(e) motions “serve the narrow purpose
of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989).
In his motion, Williams states that he has contacted various law firms and
nonprofit legal organizations regarding his case, but that “[t]hese organization[s] are
overwhelmed.”8 He further states that the “defendant(s), Judge, [and] prosecutor, are
all apart [sic] of [the] ABA (The American Bar Association). Williams is the only one
6 Rule 59(e) motions must be filed within 28 days of entry of the order to be amended.
Williams filed the instant motion six days after entry of the Court’s order denying his
motion for appointment of counsel. See R. Doc. Nos 8, 9.
7 Rule 54(b) states, in relevant part, that “any order or other decision . . .that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties does not end the action . . . and may be revised at any time before the entry
of a judgment[.]” Rule 60(b) provides, in relevant part, that “the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to
circumstances including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,”
“newly discovered evidence,” “fraud,” or “any other reason that justifies relief.”
8 R. Doc. No. 9, at 1.
not part of ABA.”® He also argues that “your laws are in INFLUENCE[D] by and
base[d] on Christianity” and that “when [he] walk[s] through the halls of EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, [he] gaze[s] in astonishment” because “NO one on the
wall looks like [him].”!°
Williams has not identified a manifest error of law or fact, nor has he presented
new evidence, and he has therefore not identified circumstances warranting
reconsideration of the denial of his motion.!! Waltman, 875 F.2d at 473. Moreover,
none of the circumstances pointed to by Williams suggest that this case is unusually
complex or that Williams is not capable of adequately presenting or investigating it.
See Delaughter, 909 F.3d at 141 (setting out these factors as relevant to the decision
of whether to appoint counsel in a civil case). Williams’ motion for reconsideration
will therefore be denied.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that that Williams’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 22, 2023.
on__
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 Td.
10 Td.
11 Williams has likewise not identified any circumstances justifying relief pursuant
to Rules 54(b) or 60(b).