United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
HARRISON A. PARFAIT, JR.
TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT
ORDER AND REASONS
S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are plaintiff Harrison A. Parfait, Jr.'s motion
for extension of time and to produce the R&R report,
his motion to appoint counsel. For the following reasons, the
Court denies the motions.
November 23, 2016, Parfait filed his complaint against
defendant Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from
sleep apnea and needs to be treated with a CPAP machine or he
could suffer a heart attack. He further alleges that despite
notifying defendant of his sleep apnea and need for
treatment, defendant refused to grant plaintiff access to the
machine. On January 17, 2017, defendant moved to
dismiss plaintiff's complaint. After Parfait responded to
this motion, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the
complaint for failure to state a claim. Parfait filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. On April 4, 2017, the Court adopted the
Report and Recommendation and dismissed Parfait's
complaint without prejudice. Parfait then filed a motion to
amend his complaint on June 21, 2018,  which the
Court denied because a post-judgment amendment was not
permissible in plaintiff's circumstances.Parfait's
appeal of this order to the Fifth Circuit is currently
now seeks court appointed counsel for the
appeal. There is no general right to counsel in
civil rights actions. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d
564, 581 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Cupit v. Jones, 835
F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987)). A district court should not
appoint counsel simply because appointment of counsel would
be beneficial. See Saulsberry v. Edwards, No.
07-5395, 2007 WL 4365394, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 2007)
(citing Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th
Cir. 1997)). Instead, a district court should appoint counsel
only if exceptional circumstances exist. See, e.g.,
McFaul, 684 F.3d at 86 (citing Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982);
Norton, 122 F.3d at 293).
courts consider four factors when deciding whether
exceptional circumstances exist in a particular case: (1) the
type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the plaintiff is
capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) whether
plaintiff is in a position to adequately investigate 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 and in cross examination.
Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213. None of the Ulmer
factors weigh in favor of appointing counsel in this case.
His claim is not legally complex; his advocacy thus far
demonstrates that he is capable of adequately presenting and
investigating the case; and nothing in the record indicates
that skill in presentation or cross-examination is required
to litigate his claims. Accordingly, the Court denies his
motion to appoint counsel.
also seeks a 90 day extension to answer the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation and for the Court to
re-submit the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. No extension or re-submission is
required, because Parfait has already responded to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation before the
Court adopted it. The motion is therefore moot. For these
reasons, plaintiffs motions are DENIED.
 R. Doc. 48.
 R. Doc. 52.
 R. Doc. 4.
Id. at 3-4.