IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10689
Conference Calendar
__________________
TIMOTHY ERNEST MORAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGE C. WACKENHUT and
SANDRA THACKER,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CV-162-Y
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Timothy Ernest Moran has appealed the denial of his motion
for appointment of counsel by the district court. An
interlocutory order denying the appointment of counsel in a civil
rights action may be immediately appealed. Robbins v. Maggio,
750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 1985). A trial court is not required
to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff asserting a claim
under § 1983 unless there are exceptional circumstances. Ulmer
v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). A district
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-10689
-2-
court has the discretion to appoint counsel for a plaintiff
proceeding pro se if doing so would advance the proper
administration of justice. Id. at 213.
Among the factors used to determine whether exceptional
circumstances warrant appointment of counsel in a civil rights
suit, the court should consider: (1) the type and complexity of
the case; (2) whether the indigent is capable of adequately
presenting the case; (3) whether the indigent is in a position to
investigate the case adequately; and (4) whether the evidence
consists in large part of conflicting testimony requiring skill
in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination. Id.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to appoint counsel for
an abuse of discretion. Id.
The district court gave adequate reasons, in accordance with
the Ulmer test, for denying Moran's motion for appointment of
counsel. Moran's complaint is straightforward and his pleadings
show that he is literate and capable of presenting coherent
arguments to the court. He does not need legal skills nor
training to inform the court adequately of his allegations. See
Feist v. Jefferson County Comm'rs Court, 778 F.2d 250, 253 (5th
Cir. 1985). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
refusing to appoint counsel in this case.
The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 219, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
No. 95-10689
-3-
Moran is WARNED that the filing of frivolous appeals in the
future will result in the imposition of sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED.