IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 97-50737
Summary Calendar
_______________
ADRIAN A. MILES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
JEFFREY P. LAMB,
Sergeant, Hughes Unit,
and
BRIAN K. ROWE,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(W-95-CV-323)
_________________________
October 7, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adrian Miles, a state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint alleging excessive use of force and deliberate
indifference to his safety. Miles appeals the magistrate judge’s
denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). We review for abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Dallas
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.1
I.
No automatic right to counsel exists in a § 1983 case. Cupit
v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Instead, we appoint
counsel only in those cases in which “exceptional circumstances”
are present. Id. In determining whether exceptional circumstances
exist, “two basic factors” control: “the type and complexity of the
case, and the abilities of the individual bringing it.” Branch v.
Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Although from time to
time we have elaborated on these factors, see Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982) (listing “type and complexity” of
case; indigent’s ability to present case; indigent’s ability to
investigate case; and indigent’s “skill in . . . presentation” as
factors), case complexity and indigent ability predominate. See
Cupit, 835 F.2d at 86; Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 412 (5th
Cir. 1985) (citing Branch, 686 F.2d at 266). Indeed, the
“additional” factors listed in Ulmer are merely functions of case
complexity and indigent ability.
The magistrate judge found that Miles’s case “is not . . .
complex, nor does it raise any new or novel issues. Additionally,
the pleadings filed herein, indicate that the Plaintiff is able to
litigate the action pro se.” Because the record supports this
1
Miles has also moved for appointment of appellate counsel. Because he has
not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, this motion is denied.
2
determination, the court did not abuse its discretion. While a
more detailed explanation of the findings would have facilitated
our review, we hasten to add that on a record as clearly devoid of
“exceptional circumstances” as this one, even purely conclusional
determinations can be upheld on appeal. See Jackson, 811 F.2d
at 261.
AFFIRMED.
3