The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
KEITH WAYNE ROBERTSON DOCKET NO. 24-cv-00239
D.O.C. # 514621 SECTION P
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
JEAN ANN EAST, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before this Court are plaintiff’s Letter/Motion re Efforts to Obtain Accounts
Officer Page (doc. 4) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 5).
1. Doc. 4 - Letter/Motion re Efforts to Obtain Accounts Officer Page
On March 25, 2024, plaintiff asked this Court to order the Tensas Parish Detention Center
Warden to provide his bank statements in order to properly file his request to proceed in forma
pauperis. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a properly executed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (doc. 7) which was granted by the Court (doc. 8). Accordingly, plaintiff’s Letter/Motion
re Efforts to Obtain Accounts Officer Page is MOOT.
2. Doc. 5 – Motion to Appoint Counsel
On April 3, 2024, plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. 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.4th 485, 492-493 (5th Cir. 2022); Brown v. Tarrant County,
Texas, 985 F.3d 489, 499 (5th 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 docs. 4 and 5 are DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this Ist day of June, 2024.
a AS P. LEBLANC
UNITED SPATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-3-