IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10449
Summary Calendar
JOHN SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS; TIM CURRY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:01-CV-97-Y)
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant John Smith, Texas state prisoner # 641206,
challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights lawsuit. Smith argues that the district court erred
when it denied his motion to amend his complaint to substitute the
Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department in place of Tarrant County,
Texas. The district court concluded that Smith’s claims against
Tarrant County were not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
Smith does not contest this conclusion in his appeal. Therefore,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
leave to amend because an amendment substituting one party for
another would have been futile. See McKinney v. Irving Indep. Sch.
Dist., F.3d. (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2002) (No. 01-10233), 2002 WL
31202748, *6.
Smith also argues that the district court erred when it denied
his request for assistance of counsel. The district court did not
treat Smith’s request as a separate motion, but rather implicitly
denied the request when it dismissed Smith’s complaint. Smith has
not shown that this is an exceptional case of the type and
complexity warranting appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982). Therefore, the
district court’s implicit denial of Smith’s request for appointment
of counsel was not an abuse of discretion.
The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\02\02-10449.0.wpd
4/29/04 8:42 am
2