Howard Carroll v. John Rupert, et al, No. 18-40947 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-40947 Document: 00515227012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-40947 Summary Calendar FILED December 6, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk HOWARD F. CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KEITH FOUST, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit; JACINTA ASSAVA, Nurse Practitioner, University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; SARAH PIERSON, Nurse Practitioner, University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; SHABRODWICK HILL, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit; TIMOTHY HENDERSON, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit; NAOMI OLIVARES, MHC Provider University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; GREGORY DINGAS, MHC Provider University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; REBEKAH HAPPEL, MHC Provider University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; SHAWN SIMMONS; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants-Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:15-CV-569 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-40947 Document: 00515227012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2019 No. 18-40947 Howard F. Carroll, Texas prisoner # 1067360, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison employees and medical staff alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. He now appeals the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. We have previously held that an order denying appointment of counsel in a § 1983 case is immediately appealable. See Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 1985). 1 Carroll also moves for appointment of counsel on appeal, which is DENIED. We review the denial of appointment of counsel for abuse of discretion. See Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015). The record reflects that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Carroll failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at the current stage of the case. See id. at 799, 801. Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Although we have decided to revisit this holding en banc in Williams v. Catoe, No. 18-40825 (5th Cir. June 18, 2019) (order granting initial hearing en banc), we apply Robbins as the current law of the circuit. See United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 2010). 1 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
