Stewart v. Cox, et al

No. 99-40323
-1-
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40323
Conference Calendar
JOSEPH HOWARD STEWART, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
D. COX, Correctional Officer 3;
J. L. WARREN, Captain; UNKNOWN PERSON DOES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:97-CV-291
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph Howard Stewart, III, TDCJ #602302, appeals the
magistrate judge’s denial of his motion for appointment of
counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Stewart argues that he
previously had the assistance of an inmate and now he lacks that
assistance. Stewart also argues that it would be unfair to
require him to proceed pro se against two professional attorneys,
that he lacks the mental faculties to present the case, and that
he is unable to respond to the two motions for summary judgment
because he is unschooled in the law.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-40323
-2-
Stewart has not demonstrated an exceptional circumstance
warranting the appointment of an attorney because the case
represents a typical use of force claim, the facts are not
complex, Stewart has demonstrated that he has a grasp of the
legal issues, and Stewart has already responded to one motion for
summary judgment. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th
Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not abuse his
discretion in denying the motion for appointment of counsel, and
the order of the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --