CARROLL v. FOUST MHC MHC MHC (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Howard F. CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Keith FOUST, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit; Jacinta Assava, Nurse Practitioner, University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; Sarah Pierson, Nurse Practitioner, University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; Shabrodwick Hill, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit; Timothy Henderson, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit; Naomi Olivares, MHC Provider University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; Gregory Dingas, MHC Provider University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; Rebekah Happel, MHC Provider University of Texas Medical Branch, Coffield Unit; Shawn Simmons; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees

No. 18-40947

Decided: December 06, 2019

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Howard F. Carroll, Pro Se Jason T. Bramow, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Financial Litigation & Charitable Trusts Division, Austin, TX, Patrick Todd Pope, Assistant Attorney General, Travis County Attorney, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Keith Foust, Timothy Henderson, Shawn Simmons Courtney Brooke Corbello, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, Patrick Todd Pope, Assistant Attorney General, Travis County Attorney, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Jacinta Assava, Naomi Olivares Courtney Brooke Corbello, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Sarah Pierson, Gregory Dingas, Rebekah Happel Jason T. Bramow, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Financial Litigation & Charitable Trusts Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Office of the Attorney General

Howard F. Carroll, Texas prisoner # 1067360, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison employees and medical staff alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. He now appeals the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. We have previously held that an order denying appointment of counsel in a § 1983 case is immediately appealable. See Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 1985).¹ Carroll also moves for appointment of counsel on appeal, which is DENIED.

We review the denial of appointment of counsel for abuse of discretion. See Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015). The record reflects that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Carroll failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at the current stage of the case. See id. at 799, 801. Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

1. Although we have decided to revisit this holding en banc in Williams v. Catoe, No. 18-40825 (5th Cir. June 18, 2019) (order granting initial hearing en banc), we apply Robbins as the current law of the circuit. See United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 2010).

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law