Stanford v. Gates

S.D. Texas

Stanford v. Gates

DecidedJanuary 17, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00275

StatusUnknown

This text of Stanford v. Gates (Stanford v. Gates) 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

Stanford v. Gates, (S.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 17, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JOSEPH A. STANFORD, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00275 § BILL GATES, et al., § § Defendants. §

OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed this civil action alleging nonsensical and incoherent claims against Bill Gates and other corporate defendants. The undersigned has submitted a written recommendation to dismiss to the presiding United States District Judge. (DE. 11). Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (D.E. 3). No constitutional right to appointment of counsel exists in civil rights cases. See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007); Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). A district court is not required to appoint counsel unless “‘exceptional circumstances’” exist. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). The Fifth Circuit has enunciated several factors that the Court should consider in determining whether to appoint counsel: (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) 1 / 2 whether the indigent is in a position to investigate adequately the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence. The court should also consider whether appointed counsel would aid in the efficient and equitable disposition of the case. Jackson, 811 F.2d at 262 (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (Sth Cir. 1982)); accord Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (Sth Cir. 1997). Upon careful consideration of the factors set forth in Jackson, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel, (D.E. 3), is DENIED. ORDERED on January 17, 2023.

C Jason 6 Libby Z United States Magistrate Judge

2/2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 17, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JOSEPH A. STANFORD, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00275 § BILL GATES, et al., § § Defendants. §

OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed this civil action alleging nonsensical and incoherent claims against Bill Gates and other corporate defendants. The undersigned has submitted a written recommendation to dismiss to the presiding United States District Judge. (DE. 11). Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (D.E. 3). No constitutional right to appointment of counsel exists in civil rights cases. See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007); Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). A district court is not required to appoint counsel unless “‘exceptional circumstances’” exist. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). The Fifth Circuit has enunciated several factors that the Court should consider in determining whether to appoint counsel: (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) 1 / 2 whether the indigent is in a position to investigate adequately the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence. The court should also consider whether appointed counsel would aid in the efficient and equitable disposition of the case. Jackson, 811 F.2d at 262 (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (Sth Cir. 1982)); accord Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (Sth Cir. 1997). Upon careful consideration of the factors set forth in Jackson, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel, (D.E. 3), is DENIED. ORDERED on January 17, 2023.

C Jason 6 Libby Z United States Magistrate Judge

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stanford v. Gates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-gates-txsd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack