Swanson v. Garland Police Dept

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-10530 Conference Calendar __________________ WILLIE LEE SWANSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GARLAND POLICE DEP'T; GARLAND, TX, CITY OF, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:91CV00977 - - - - - - - - - - (October 17, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Pro se briefs are construed liberally. This court, however, will not consider issues not briefed by a litigant. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1995). The sole contention discernable in Swanson's brief is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. A litigant has no constitutionally protected right to effective assistance of * Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. No. 95-10530 -2- counsel in a civil case. Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). Because Swanson's sole appellate contention is frivolous, his motions for IFP and transcription at government expense are DENIED. Counsel will not be appointed in a civil rights case absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Swanson's case does not present exceptional circumstances and his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.