Alford Lee Rose v. State of Louisiana through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: March 30, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01943
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALFORD LEE ROSE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-1943 STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE SECTION “M” (5) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, ET AL. ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court iHs aav Minogt iroenvi teow Aedp pthoein ptl eCaoduinngs ealn (dr ethc ed coacs. e2 0la)w fi,l tehde bCyo Pulrat irnutliefsf Aaslf oforldlo Lwese. RIo. se (“PBlaaicnktigffr”o).u n d

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 13, 2025 (in the U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Louisiana) alleging cruel and unusual punishment, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, denial of equal protection of the law, and failure to properly train, instruct, and supervise Defendants’ employees. (Rec. doc. 1I)d.. Plaintiff is currently housed at Rayburn Correctional Center (“RCC”) in Angie, Louisiana. ( ). Plaintiff named the State of Louisiana

through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, former Secretary James LeBlanc, Warden Travis Day, and Secretary Gary Westcott and the RCC Medical Director as Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff claims that Defendants are violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as a 100% blind person in RCC. He alleges that RCC isI dn.ot accessible or designed to properly house offenders that are 100% blind like himself. ( ). Plaintiff filed an Administrative Remedy Procedure complaint (“ARP”) numbered RCC- Id. address the issues raised in the complaint. ( ). He then claims to have moved to the next step, which was with the Secretary for the Department, who has yet to answer him. Plaintiff then filed this suit seeking damages, costs, fees,I do.t)h.er just and equitable relief, and for

DefeIIn. dant Ltoa wco amnpdl yA wnaitlhy sthise ADA immediately. (

The Court’s power to “appoint counsel” is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which provides that the “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” PlainSteieff C haasst onne vit. hSeera ras ,c Roonesbtiutuckti o&n Caol .n, or an automatic right to appointed counsel in a civil case. 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977). Unlike a criminal defendant, an indigent civil rights litigant, even if currently incaSrceeerNatoerdt,o dno ve.s En.oUt. hDaimvea zaa nriaght to appointed counsel absent “e;x Acekpatsiiokne avl. cFiirtczupmatsrtiackn,c es.”

, V12it2u gF v.3. dM 2er8i6t ,S 2y9s.3 P r(5ottehc Ctiiorn. 1B9d9.7) 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994); , Civ. A. No. 01-3297, 2002 WL 1216023 (E. D. La. June 4, 2002). Indeed, the federal court has coSneesiSdaelrmabolne vd. iCscorreptuios nC hinr idsteit Ienrdmeipn. iSncgh woohle Dthisetr. to make such an appointment in a civil case. , 911 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1990). The Court has discretion to apSpeoei nUtl mcoeurn vs. eClh iann scuecllho ra, case if doing so would advance the prop eSra almdmoninistration of justice. 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982); , 911 F.2d at 1166. STehee C palsatoinnt,i ff bears the burden of persuasion as to the necessity of such an appointment. 556 F.2d at

1310. The evidence that must be adduced includes (1) plaintiff’s indigence and (2) efforts made to secure counstehlr. e shold should consider the following factors:

(a) the type and complexity of the case; (b) whether the indigent is capable of presenting his case adequately; (c) whether he is in a position to investigate his case adequately; and (d) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as Parker v. Carpteon treerquire skill in the presentation of evideUnlcmee arnd in cross-examination. , 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); , 691 F.2d at 213. The Court also considers whether appointment of counseIdl .w ould be of service to the court and the defendant by sharpening the issues in the case. This Court granted Plaintiff pauper status, and he is thus indigent. (Rec. doc. 8). There is no evidence to indicate whether Plaintiff has made any efforts to secure counsel himself. However, Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and lacks the resources to adequately communicate with lawyers. More importantly, Plaintiff is 100% blind and has been since 1994. (Rec. doc. 1). Although he represents himself in this matter, he currently has a friend and fellow inmate, Derrick Jerome Allen, helping him file pleadings. (Rec. doc. 20). Plaintiff alleges that prison officials have retaliated against Allen by taking his law-related work and damaging his law books and legal mIda.terials with the intention of forcing Allen to discontinue helping Plaintiff in this matter. ( ). He also claims that the law library at the prison is Iidn.adequate and the staff who work in the library do not know about civil law or federal law. ( ). Plaintiff argues that because he is blind and cannot see, he is not in position to present or investigate his case adequately. Plaintiff’s complaint involves several Defendants and grievances. The complexity of the case is certainly increased with the Plaintiffs inability to see. Further, Plaintiff alleges he facility is not accessible or designed to properly house offenders that are 100% blind like himself. Upon considering the factors stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met his

burden of establishing why the appointment of counsel is necessary. Plaintiff is indigent, incarcerated, and fully blind. Thus, it is evident that he is incapable of presenting his case adequately and he is not a position to investigate his case sufficiently. Further, he is incapable of litigating this case on his own. Appointment of counsel would be of service to the court and the defendant not only by sharpening the issues in the case but by ensuring the legaIlI Ip. roceCsos nisc flauisri aonnd acceptable. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

is GRANTED. Motion to AppoIiTn tI SC oFuUnRseTl H(rEecR d OocR. 2D0E)R ED that, on or before April 24. 2026, the FBA-NO Pilot Program Coordinator is to undertake a search for an attorney from the Civil Pro Bono Counsel Panel for the appointment and provide that attorney’s name and contact information to the undersigned. Once that information is received, the Court will issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to designate that attorney on the docket sheet as counsel for Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this order to the Program Coordinator. 30th March New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2026.

____________________________________________ MICHAEL B. NORTH