Williams v. Thaler et al, No. 2:2009cv00271 - Document 68 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying 66 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(srussell, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION KENNETH RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, V. RICK THALER, ET AL., Defendant. § § § § § § § CA C-09-271 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, currently assigned to the Telford Unit in New Boston, Texas. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants/prison officials at the McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas, failed to protect him from the risk of harm by another inmate (D.E. 1). Pending is plaintiff s motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 66). In Bounds v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner's constitutional right of access to the courts requires that the access be meaningful; that is, prison officials must provide pro se litigants with writing materials, access to the law library, or other forms of legal assistance. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 829 (1977). There is, however, no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in civil rights cases. Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994); Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Further, Bounds did not create a "free-standing right to a law library or legal assistance." Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). It is within the Court's discretion to appoint counsel, unless the case presents "exceptional circumstances," thus requiring the appointment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). A number of factors should be examined when determining whether to appoint counsel. Jackson v. Dallas Police Department, 811 F.2d 260, 261-62 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982)). The first is the type and complexity of the case. Id. This case is not complex. According to plaintiff, McConnell Unit officials placed him in danger of being harmed by other inmates. After plaintiff was moved to the Terrell Unit in New Boston, Texas, he was placed in protective custody, but according to plaintiff general population inmates have access to his housing area and have threatened him again. Though serious, plaintiff s allegations are not complex. The second and third factors are whether the plaintiff is in a position to adequately investigate and present his case. Id. Plaintiff s pleadings demonstrate he is reasonably articulate and intelligent. During the evidentiary hearing held by telephone conference call, plaintiff has been articulate and has demonstrated he understands his claim. At this early stage of the case, plaintiff is in a position to adequately investigate and present his case. The fourth factor which should be examined is whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in crossexamination. Id. Examination of this factor is premature because the case has not yet been set for trial. Defendants have not yet filed their answer, and dispositive motions have not yet been filed. 2 Finally, there is no indication that appointed counsel would aid in the efficient and equitable disposition of the case. The Court has the authority to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiff is not prohibited from hiring an attorney on a contingent-fee arrangement. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 66) is denied without prejudice at this time. This order will be sua sponte reexamined as the case proceeds. ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2010. ____________________________________ B. JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

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.