Savoy v. New Orleans Police Department et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRADLEY 	JOSEPH 	LAWRENCE
SAVOY
VERSUS
NEW ORLEANS POLICE
DEPARTMENT ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-660
SECTION "A" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion for Protective
Order, and Motion for Preservation of Evidence (R. Doc. 90) by pro se Plaintiff,
Bradley Joseph Lawrence Savoy. The motion is denied for the following reasons.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel.” A plaintiff in a civil rights case,
however, has no right to the automatic appointment of counsel. Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). A district court, in its discretion, may appoint
counsel to represent a plaintiff in a § 1983 proceeding “if doing so would advance the
proper administration of justice.” Id. at 213. Thus, the court should only appoint
counsel for an indigent plaintiff in a civil rights case if the case presents exceptional
circumstances. Norton v. E.U. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997). In
making this determination, the undersigned has considered all of the following
factors: (a) the type and complexity of the case; (b) whether the plaintiff is capable of
presenting his case adequately; (c) whether he is in a position to investigate his case
adequately; and (d) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting
Case 2:25-cv-00660-JCZ-EJD Document 91 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-
examination. Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); Ulmer, 691 F.2d
at 213.
As explained by the Court’s previous report and recommendation denying
appointment of counsel, Plaintiff has not identified any extraordinary circumstances:
Excessive force and involuntary medical treatment claims, like those in
this 	case, 	are 	not 	considered 	complex 	and 	require 	no 	difficult
investigation to determine the alleged actions taken by Defendants. See,
e.g., Lewis v. Brengesty, 385 F. App’x 395, 397 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming
denial of counsel in § 1983 action alleging excessive force); see also, Kiser
v. Dearing, 442 F. App’x 132, 135 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he legal contours
of excessive force claims are well-established and not particularly
complex.”). Plaintiff’s case likely will involve mostly factual questions
and 	possible 	conflicting 	testimony, 	as 	is 	the 	nature 	of 	litigation.
However, such conflicts are not indicative of unusual or exceptional
circumstances requiring assistance of counsel. See James v. Gonzalez,
348 F. App’x 957, 958 (5th Cir. 2009) (“conflicting testimony” are among
the “common elements in civil rights cases” and does not necessarily
“rise to the level of exceptional circumstances.”).1
Although Plaintiff is indigent and lacks formal legal training, the frequency2 and
detail of Plaintiff’s filings demonstrate that he is capable of adequately presenting
his case. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 1986)
(“Jackson has filed ten different items ranging from his original complaint to the
notice of appeal that brought this matter before this court.”); see Gilbert v. French,
1 R. Doc. 32. The report and recommendation was adopted by the District Judge. R.
Doc. 76.
2 See R. Doc. 76 at 1 (“Eighteen motions were pending when the Court received the
case and fifteen of those motions were filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed four
additional motions so twenty-two motions are now pending.”).
Case 2:25-cv-00660-JCZ-EJD Document 91 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
364 F. App’x 76, 85 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of counsel given “the detailed
arguments” the plaintiff had presented). Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated
exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel.
In his motion, Plaintiff also seeks a protective order against the Jefferson
Parish Sheriff’s Office and New Orleans Police Department.3 Plaintiff requests that
the 	Court 	enter 	a 	protective 	order 	“preventing 	retaliation, 	intimidation, 	and
interference,” and prohibiting those entities from contacting Plaintiff without court
supervision.4 Plaintiff does not present any authority which allows the Court to issue
such an order. Moreover, Plaintiff only raises a “concern” that those entities could
engage in such activities.5 Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for a protective order
must be denied.
Plaintiff also requests an order requiring Defendants to preserve evidence.
There is no indication, however, that Defendants intends to violate its obligation to
preserve evidence. The fact that most of the Defendants are represented by counsel
and are on notice of this lawsuit bolsters this conclusion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (R. Doc. 90) is DENIED.
3 R. Doc. 90 at 2, 5.
4 Id. at 3.
5 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00660-JCZ-EJD Document 91 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27 th day of March, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00660-JCZ-EJD Document 91 Filed 03/27/26 Page 4 of 4