Bishop v. Lee

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 9, 1996·No. 95-40704·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40704 Conference Calendar __________________

SHANE EDWARD BISHOP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JEFF HENSLEY, et al.,

Defendants,

DOUG LEE, Denton County Detention Officer,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-98 - - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shane Edward Bishop has appealed the district court's denial

of his motion for appointment of counsel. An interlocutory order

denying the appointment of counsel in a civil rights action may

be immediately appealed. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413

(5th Cir. 1985). A trial court is not required to appoint

counsel for an indigent plaintiff asserting a claim under 42

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-40704 -2-

U.S.C. § 1983 unless exceptional circumstances exist. Ulmer v.

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). A district court

has the discretion to appoint counsel for a plaintiff proceeding

pro se if doing so would advance the proper administration of

justice. Id. at 213.

A review of the district court's order, which reveals that

it considered the four Ulmer factors, as well as of the record on

appeal and Bishop's brief, demonstrates that the court did not

abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel for Bishop in

this case.

Bishop has also moved for the appointment of counsel in this

appeal. Because the issues presented in this appeal are limited

to the denial of Bishop's appointment-of-counsel motion in the

district court, appointment of counsel is not warranted in this

appeal. He has also filed motions to strike the appellee’s

response brief and to file a reply brief out of time. Neither

motion has any bearing on the issues before the court.

AFFIRMED.

MOTIONS DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bishop v. Lee, (5th Cir. 1996).

Bishop v. Lee (Bishop v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robbins v. Maggio
750 F.2d 405 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)