Roberson v. Hutchison

S.D. Texas

Roberson v. Hutchison

DecidedFebruary 27, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-02965

StatusUnknown

This text of Roberson v. Hutchison (Roberson v. Hutchison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberson v. Hutchison, (S.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 27, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

MICHAEL CARDORA ROBERSON, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-2965 § BRANDLEY HUTCHISON § and § J.E. BLAKE § and § J. HAWKINS, et al, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Cardora Roberson, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a civil rights complaint. He now moves for appointment of counsel and to compel production of documents. In his motion for appointment of counsel, the plaintiff requests counsel on the grounds that he is indigent, incarcerated, and uneducated in the law. A civil rights plaintiff has no automatic right to the appointment of counsel. See Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 172- 73 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982)). The appointment of counsel is not required unless a case presents exceptional circumstances. See Hulsey, 929 F.2d at 173 (citing Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 212-13). Other than pointing to his status as an indigent inmate, the plaintiff provides no details in support of his request. Because he does not allege or show that exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel in this case, the plaintiff’s motion will be denied at this time. If appropriate, the Court will reconsider whether counsel is necessary on its own motion at a later date. In an order entered on February 18, 2020, this Court granted the defendants a protective order and ordered that no discovery will be permitted until after the defendants’ motions to dismiss are resolved. See Doc. #62. Accordingly, Roberson’s motion to compel is denied. For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Roberson’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 66) and his motion to compel production of documents (Doc. # 68) are DENIED. It isso ORDERED. SIGNED on this 27" day of February, 2020.

KennetthM.Hoyt ——

2/2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 27, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

MICHAEL CARDORA ROBERSON, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-2965 § BRANDLEY HUTCHISON § and § J.E. BLAKE § and § J. HAWKINS, et al, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Cardora Roberson, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a civil rights complaint. He now moves for appointment of counsel and to compel production of documents. In his motion for appointment of counsel, the plaintiff requests counsel on the grounds that he is indigent, incarcerated, and uneducated in the law. A civil rights plaintiff has no automatic right to the appointment of counsel. See Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 172- 73 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982)). The appointment of counsel is not required unless a case presents exceptional circumstances. See Hulsey, 929 F.2d at 173 (citing Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 212-13). Other than pointing to his status as an indigent inmate, the plaintiff provides no details in support of his request. Because he does not allege or show that exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel in this case, the plaintiff’s motion will be denied at this time. If appropriate, the Court will reconsider whether counsel is necessary on its own motion at a later date. In an order entered on February 18, 2020, this Court granted the defendants a protective order and ordered that no discovery will be permitted until after the defendants’ motions to dismiss are resolved. See Doc. #62. Accordingly, Roberson’s motion to compel is denied. For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Roberson’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 66) and his motion to compel production of documents (Doc. # 68) are DENIED. It isso ORDERED. SIGNED on this 27" day of February, 2020.

KennetthM.Hoyt ——

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roberson v. Hutchison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-hutchison-txsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack