McGown v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JERRELL JHERON MCGOWN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1135
JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, ET AL.
SECTION “H” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Jerrell Jheron McGown (“McGown”) filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF
No. 6) to assist him in this in forma pauperis civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging
alleged constitutional violations that took place during his arrest and the conditions of his
confinement. McGown states that he is unable to afford counsel, his imprisonment will greatly
limit his ability to litigate, and that he has made repeated efforts to obtain counsel. ECF No. 6 at
1-2.
Section 3(d) of the April 22, 2014 Resolution of the En Banc Court (permanently adopted
on October 5, 2016) provides: “In cases filed by prisoners, counsel may not be appointed from the
Panel until the Magistrate Judge has determined that the case should proceed beyond the screening
process required in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.” The court is currently conducting its statutory
frivolousness review of McGown’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, § 1915(e)(2), and
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), as applicable. Only after completion of the required screening process will
this court be in a position to assess whether “exceptional circumstances” 1 exist to warrant
1 There is no automatic right to appointment of counsel in a civil rights case so the court may not appoint counsel as
a matter of course or ordinary practice. Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Castro Romero
v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 353–54 (5th Cir.2001)); see also Hadd v. LSG-Sky Chefs, 272 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001);
Castro v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 353–54 (5th Cir. 2001). 	Rather, in civil rights cases, counsel should be appointed
only upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances” based on a consideration of the type and complexity if the case,
the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case adequately, and the level of skill required to present the
evidence. 	Norton v. DiMazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.
Case 2:25-cv-01135-JTM Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 2

2
appointment of counsel in this proceeding. Therefore, at this time, McGown’s request for
appointment of counsel is premature.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jerrell Jheron McGown’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
(ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice to his right to re-urge his request after completion of
the statutorily mandated screening review.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 	_ 	day of January, 2026.
_____________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1982); Romero, 486 F.3d at 354; see also Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). 	In addition, the
court should consider whether appointment would be a service to the court and all parties in the case by “sharpening
the issues . . . ., shaping the examination of witnesses, and thus shortening the trial and assisting in a just
determination.” Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213.
12th
Case 2:25-cv-01135-JTM Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 2