Parfait v. Nurse Dominque et al, No. 2:2017cv00738 - Document 36 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: denying 34 Motion to Appoint Counsel, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/19/2018. (am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Parfait v. Nurse Dominque et al Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA HARRISON A. PARFAIT, JR. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-738 NURSE DOMINQUE ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is plaintiff Harrison A. Parfait, Jr.’s motion to appoint counsel.1 The Court denies the motion because Parfait does not have a right to appointed counsel in this case. I. BACKGROUND On October 3, 2016, Parfait filed a complaint in the Western District of Louisiana against defendants “Ms. Dominque” and “Ms. Renea,” nurses at Terrebonne Parish Criminal Complex in Houma, Louisiana, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2 He alleges that defendants provided inadequate medical care when they refused to grant plaintiff access to a CPAP machine to treat his sleep apnea.3 On January 1, 2017, the case was transferred to the Eastern District 1 2 3 R. Doc. 34. R. Doc. 1. Id. Dockets.Justia.com of Louisiana and assigned to this Court. 4 On August 8, 2017, the Court adopted the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations and dismissed Parfait’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.5 On August 22, 2018, Parfait gave notice of appeal of the Court’s dismissal. 6 He now seeks appointed counsel for his appeal. 7 II. DISCUSSION There is no general right to counsel in civil rights actions. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 581 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987)). A district court should not appoint counsel simply because appointment of counsel would be beneficial. See Saulsberry v. Edwards, No. 07–5395, 2007 WL 4365394, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 2007) (citing Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997)). Instead, a district court should appoint counsel only if exceptional circumstances exist. See, e.g., McFaul, 684 F.3d at 86 (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982); Norton, 122 F.3d at 293). 4 5 6 7 R. Doc. 3. R. Doc. 17. R. Doc. 30. R. Doc. 34. 2 District courts consider four factors when deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist in a particular case: (1) the type and complexity 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 testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross examination. Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213. None of the Ulmer factors weighs in favor of appointing counsel in this case. Parfait’s claim is not legally complex; his advocacy thus far demonstrates that he is capable of adequately presenting and investigating the case; and nothing in the record indicates that skill in presentation or cross-examination is required to litigate his claims. Accordingly, the Court denies his motion to appoint counsel. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 19th day of December, 2018. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.
