Parfait v. Terrebonne Parish Consulate Government, No. 2:2016cv16362 - Document 53 (E.D. La. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 48 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying 52 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/05/2018. (am)

Download PDF

Parfait v. Terrebonne Parish Consulate Government Doc. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA HARRISON A. PARFAIT, J R. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-16362 TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court are plaintiff Harrison A. Parfait, J r.’s m otion for extension of tim e and to produce the R&R report, 1 and his m otion to appoint counsel. 2 For the following reasons, the Court denies the motions. On Novem ber 23, 20 16, Parfait filed his com plaint against defendant Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3 Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from sleep apnea and needs to be treated with a CPAP m achine or he could suffer a heart attack. 4 He further alleges that despite notifying defendant of his sleep apnea and need for treatm ent, defendant refused to grant plaintiff access to the m achine. 5 On J anuary 17, 1 2 3 4 5 R. Doc. 48. R. Doc. 52. R. Doc. 4. Id. at 3-4. Id. Dockets.Justia.com 20 17, defendant m oved to dism iss plaintiff’s com plaint. 6 After Parfait responded to this m otion, the Magistrate J udge recom mended dism issing the com plaint for failure to state a claim . 7 Parfait filed objections to the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom m endation. 8 On April 4, 20 17, the Court adopted the Report and Recom m endation and dism issed Parfait’s com plaint without prejudice. 9 Parfait then filed a m otion to amend his com plaint on J une 21, 20 18, 10 which the Court denied because a postjudgm ent amendment was not perm issible in plaintiff’s circum stances. 11 Parfait’s appeal of this order to the Fifth Circuit is currently pending. 12 Parfait now seeks court appointed counsel for the appeal. 13 There is no general right to counsel in civil rights actions. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 581 (5th Cir. 20 12) (citing Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987)). A district court should not appoint counsel sim ply because appointm ent of counsel would be beneficial. See Saulsberry v. Edw ards, No. 0 7– 5395, 20 0 7 WL 4365394, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 20 0 7) (citing N orton v. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 R. Doc. 16. R. Doc. 24. R. Doc. 28. R. Doc. 29. R. Doc. 42. R. Doc. 45. R. Doc. 46. R. Doc. 52. 2 Dim azana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997)). Instead, a district court should appoint counsel only if exceptional circum stances exist. See, e.g., McFaul, 684 F.3d at 86 (citing Ulm er v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 20 9, 212 (5th Cir. 1982); N orton, 122 F.3d at 293). District courts consider four factors when deciding whether exceptional circum stances exist in a particular case: (1) the type and com plexity of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) whether plaintiff is in a position to adequately investigate the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testim ony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross exam ination. Ulm er, 691 F.2d at 213. None of the Ulm er factors weigh in favor of appointing counsel in this case. His claim is not legally com plex; his advocacy thus far dem onstrates that he is capable of adequately presenting and investigating the case; and nothing in the record indicates that skill in presentation or cross-exam ination is required to litigate his claim s. Accordingly, the Court denies his m otion to appoint counsel. Parfait also seeks a 90 day extension to answer the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recomm endation and for the Court to re-subm it the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom m endation. 14 No extension or re-subm ission is 14 R. Doc. 48. 3 required, because Parfait has already responded to the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recomm endation before the Court adopted it. The m otion is therefore m oot. For these reasons, plaintiff’s m otions are DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _5th _ _ _ day of November, 20 18. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 4

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.