Newman v. Our Lady Angels et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICO NEWMAN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2478
OUR LADY ANGELS CORP., ET AL. 	SECTION “A” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Rico Newman (“Newman”) filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 4) to
assist him in this in forma pauperis civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he
challenges the conditions of his confinement. Newman states that he is unable to afford counsel
and has made efforts to obtain counsel but was declined. ECF No. 4 at 1-4.
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 Newman’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, § 1915(e)(2), and
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), as applicable. As part of that review, the court also may schedule a Spears1
hearing to further develop the facts alleged in the complaint. Only after completion of the required
screening process will this court be in a position to assess whether “exceptional circumstances”2
1 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), overruled on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319
(1989); see also Wilson v. Barientos, 926 F.2d 480, 482 (5th Cir. 1991) (discussing purpose of Spears hearing).
2 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.
1982); Romero, 486 F.3d at 354; see also Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). 	In addition, the
Case 2:25-cv-02478-JCZ Document 5 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
exist to warrant appointment of counsel in this proceeding. Therefore, at this time, Newman’s
request for appointment of counsel is premature.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Rico Newman’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No.
4) 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
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.
8th
Case 2:25-cv-02478-JCZ Document 5 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2