ROBERT CEASAR 388150 v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL (2018)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (R. Doc. 9).

Pro se Plaintiff, an inmate confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”), Angola, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Secretary James LeBlanc, the LSP Chaplain's Department, Major Robert Rowe, Col. Jeremy Mckey, Major Hebert and LSP Chaplain Rickey Sharkey, complaining that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by retaliating against him for the exercise of his First Amendment constitutional rights and by interfering with the free exercise of his religious beliefs. According to Plaintiff, this retaliation and interference have taken the form of false disciplinary reports and proceedings, threats and an accusation that Plaintiff is a “rat” or “snitch,” conduct that has resulted in the loss or theft of Plaintiff's property, and a refusal to allow Plaintiff to grow a beard and dreadlocks in accordance with his faith. Plaintiff further complains that prison officials have failed to update the LSP grooming policy in light of a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Ware v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 866 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2017). In several proposed Amended and/or Supplemental Complaints, Plaintiff has requested leave to include additional claims against additional Defendants, Lt.Col. Paul Smith and Major Willie Rosso.

Plaintiff requests in the instant Motion that an attorney be appointed on his behalf because he cannot afford to retain an attorney, because he has limited education, legal experience or access to the prison law library, and because the issues in this case are allegedly complex and will involve conflicting testimony.

A civil rights complainant has no right to the automatic appointment of counsel. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). District courts have “considerable discretion” in deciding whether to appoint counsel. Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1982). “ district court may appoint counsel Aif doing so would advance the proper administration of justice,” Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1989), but appointment of counsel is not required “unless the case presents exceptional circumstances,” Ulmer v. Chancellor, supra, 691 F.2d at 212. In determining whether exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel, a district court may consider (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) the indigent's ability to adequately present the case; (3) the indigent's ability to investigate the case adequately; and (4) the existence of contradictory evidence and the necessity for skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination. Id. at 213. Should the Court find that exceptional circumstances exist, the Court then has the authority to “request” an attorney to represent an inmate plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 915(e)(1) and the extra-statutory authority to order an attorney to do so in rare circumstances. Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 801 (5th Cir. 2015).

Plaintiff's claims relative to the violation of his First Amendment rights are not unduly complex, and Plaintiff has adequately represented himself in this case so far. He has filed a Complaint and several proposed Amended Complaints that set forth the legal and factual basis for his claims. In addition, the Court has this date entered an Order directing that Defendants be served and directing that Defendants provide Plaintiff with documentation pertinent to his claims. Plaintiff will be able to utilize that documentation, once produced, to cross-examine Defendants and prepare for trial, if warranted. In addition, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include discovery provisions that allow for Plaintiff to propound written discovery requests to Defendants and so provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to conduct an investigation into his claims. To the extent that Plaintiff believes that he has a limited knowledge of the law, this is true of nearly every prisoner who prosecutes a pro se lawsuit. For this reason, pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

While appointment of counsel would likely be of benefit to Plaintiff (as it would to virtually any plaintiff), the circumstances presented in Plaintiff's motion do not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. To the contrary, the detailed factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint and proposed Amended Complaints suggest that Plaintiff has the ability to proceed in this matter. Therefore, the Court concludes that a consideration of the factors set forth in Ulmer v. Chancellor, supra, does not support a finding that appointment of counsel for Plaintiff is required or justified at this time in this case. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (R. Doc. 9) is hereby DENIED.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 28, 2018.

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE