The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
LANIE DRINION THOMISEE DOCKET NO. 6:24-cv-0062
SECTION P
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
POLICE DEPT OF LAKE CHARLES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
ET AL.
ORDER
Pursuant to a letter/motion filed in this Court on February 26, 2024, plaintiff requests that
the Court order the Warden of the Calcasieu Parish Correctional Center to provide the documents
necessary for plaintiff to complete her application to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as appoint
counsel. Doc. 7. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel reiterates an earlier request. See
Doc. 2.
With respect to plaintiff’s request regarding his prison account, that request is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve, by certified mail, the Warden of the Calcasieu Parish
Correctional Center with: (1) a copy of this Order; and (2) a copy of the Court’s Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, including the accounts officer page.
IT IS ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the Warden
shall: (A) ensure that an authorized officer at the facility completes the accounts officer page, signs
it, and attaches a certified copy of plaintiff’s prison trust fund account showing at least the past six
months’ transactions; and (B) mail the accounts officer page to the Clerk of Court, John M. Shaw
United States Courthouse, 800 Lafayette St., Suite 2100, Lafayette, LA 70501.
Regarding plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, that request is DENIED. Congress has
not specifically authorized courts to appoint counsel for plaintiffs proceeding under 42 U.S.C.
§1983. “Generally, no right to counsel exists in §1983 actions [but] appointment of counsel should
be made as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1915 where ‘exceptional circumstances’ are present.”
Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1985). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), federal
courts are given the power to request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff. In the case
of Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1818 (1989),
the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts can only request that an attorney represent
a person unable to employ counsel because federal courts are not empowered under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(1) to make compulsory appointments.
Although courts can request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff, the court is not
required to make this request in the absence of “exceptional circumstances.” See Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir.
1989). No precise definition of “exceptional circumstances” is available, but the United States
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has provided a litany of factors for lower courts to consider in
determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the court request that counsel assist him in his
suit. It is proper for the court to consider the following factors: the type and complexity of the
case; the plaintiff’s ability to adequately present and investigate his case; the presence of evidence
which largely consists of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in presentation of evidence
and cross-examination; and the likelihood that appointment will benefit the petitioner, the court,
and the defendants by “shortening the trial and assisting in just determination.” See Parker v.
Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1992), citing Murphy v. Kellar, 950 F.2d at 293, n.14; see also
Ulmer, 691 F.2d. at 213, and Jackson, 864 F.2d. at 1242.
Plaintiff’s claims are not atypical of those often asserted in civil rights litigation and are
not complex. Further, plaintiff has not shown himself to be unable to represent his own legal
interests. See Lozano v. Schubert, 41 F.4™ 485, 492-493 (5" Cir. 2022); Brown v. Tarrant County,
Texas, 985 F.3d 489, 499 (5" Cir. 2021). Accordingly, plaintiff's request for appointment of
counsel is DENIED, as the circumstances presented herein are not “exceptional” so as to warrant
the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that document 7 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that document 2 is DENIED in part with respect to
plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel, and ruling on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
pauperis is deferred pending plaintiffs submission of a properly completed application.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 24th day of May, 2024.
UNITED S ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE