Stanford et al v. Gates et al, No. 2:2022cv00275 - Document 13 (S.D. Tex. 2023)

Court Description: OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL denying 3 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B Libby) Parties notified.(RochelleLimon, 2)

Download PDF
Stanford et al v. Gates et al Doc. 13 Case 2:22-cv-00275 Document 13 Filed on 01/17/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION JOSEPH A. STANFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. BILL GATES, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § January 17, 2023 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00275 OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed this civil action alleging nonsensical and incoherent claims against Bill Gates and other corporate defendants. The undersigned has submitted a written recommendation to dismiss to the presiding United States District Judge. (DE. 11). Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (D.E. 3). No constitutional right to appointment of counsel exists in civil rights cases. See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007); Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). A district court is not required to appoint counsel unless “‘exceptional circumstances’” exist. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). The Fifth Circuit has enunciated several factors that the Court should consider in determining whether to appoint counsel: (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) 1/2 Case 2:22-cv-00275 Document 13 Filed on 01/17/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 whether the indigent is in a position to investigate adequately 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. The court should also consider whether appointed counsel would aid in the efficient and equitable disposition of the case. Jackson, 811 F.2d at 262 (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982)); accord Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997). Upon careful consideration of the factors set forth in Jackson, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel, (D.E. 3), is DENIED. ORDERED on January 17, 2023. _______________________________ Jason B. Libby United States Magistrate Judge 2/2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.