Wilson v. McGinnis et al, No. 2:2013cv00204 - Document 22 (S.D. Tex. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion for Appointment of Counsel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION WILLIAM M. WILSON, Plaintiff, VS. FRANCES E. MCGINNIS, et al, Defendants. § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-204 § § § § OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is an inmate incarcerated TDCJ-CID s McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas. He filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the failure of medical personnel to treat his sleepwalking episodes (D.E. 1). Pending is his motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 16). 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 1/3 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. 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. Plaintiff s pleadings and his testimony during the evidentiary hearing demonstrate that he is reasonably intelligent, articulate, and able to describe the facts underlying his claims. He appears, at this stage of the case, to be 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 cross-examination. Examination of this factor is premature. Plaintiff s claims survived screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, but dispositive motions have not yet been filed. A trial date has not been scheduled, and is not imminent. Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional circumstances require the appointment of counsel. In addition, 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 2/3 counsel (D.E. 16) is denied without prejudice at this time. This order will be sua sponte reexamined as the case proceeds. ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2013. ___________________________________ B. JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3/3