Rose v. State of Louisiana et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALFORD LEE ROSE 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1943
STATE 	OF 	LOUISIANA 	THROUGH 	THE
DEPARTMENT 	OF 	PUBLIC 	SAFETY 	AND
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
SECTION “M” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Appoint Counsel (rec doc. 20) filed by Plaintiff Alford Lee
Rose (“Plaintiff”). Having reviewed the pleading and the case law, the Court rules as follows.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 13, 2025 (in the U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of
Louisiana) alleging cruel and unusual punishment, violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, denial of equal protection of the law, and failure to properly train, instruct,
and supervise Defendants’ employees. (Rec. doc. 1). Plaintiff is currently housed at Rayburn
Correctional Center (“RCC”) in Angie, Louisiana. (Id.). Plaintiff named the State of Louisiana
through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, former Secretary James LeBlanc,
Warden Travis Day, and Secretary Gary Westcott and the RCC Medical Director as
Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff claims that Defendants are violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as a
100% blind person in RCC. He alleges that RCC is not accessible or designed to properly
house offenders that are 100% blind like himself. (Id.).
Plaintiff filed an Administrative Remedy Procedure complaint (“ARP”) numbered RCC-
2025-259, but states that he was rejected because the warden allegedly did not want to
Case 2:25-cv-01943-BWA-MBN Document 27 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 4

address the issues raised in the complaint. (Id.). He then claims to have moved to the next
step, which was with the Secretary for the Department, who has yet to answer him. Plaintiff
then filed this suit seeking damages, costs, fees, other just and equitable relief, and for
Defendant to comply with the ADA immediately. (Id.).
II. 	Law and Analysis
The Court’s power to “appoint counsel” is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which
provides that the “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” Plaintiff has neither a constitutional nor an automatic right to appointed counsel
in a civil case. See Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977). Unlike
a criminal defendant, an indigent civil rights litigant, even if currently incarcerated, does not
have a right to appointed counsel absent “exceptional circumstances.” See Norton v. E.U.
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997); Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th
Cir. 1994); Vitug v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., Civ. A. No. 01-3297, 2002 WL 1216023 (E. D. La.
June 4, 2002). Indeed, the federal court has considerable discretion in determining whether
to make such an appointment in a civil case. See Salmon v. Corpus Christi Indep. School Dist.,
911 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1990). The Court has discretion to appoint counsel in such a
case if doing so would advance the proper administration of justice. See Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982); Salmon, 911 F.2d at 1166. 	The plaintiff bears the
burden of persuasion as to the necessity of such an appointment. See Caston, 556 F.2d at
1310.
The evidence that must be adduced includes
(1) 	plaintiff’s indigence and
(2) 	efforts made to secure counsel.
However, these are bare minimum threshold considerations. Additionally, the Court
Case 2:25-cv-01943-BWA-MBN Document 27 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 4

should consider the following factors:
(a) 	the type and complexity of the case;
(b) 	whether the indigent is capable of presenting his case adequately;
(c) 	whether he is in a position to investigate his case adequately; and
(d) 	whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as
to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination.
Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213. The Court
also considers whether appointment of counsel would be of service to the court and the
defendant by sharpening the issues in the case. Id.
This Court granted Plaintiff pauper status, and he is thus indigent. (Rec. doc. 8). There
is no evidence to indicate whether Plaintiff has made any efforts to secure counsel himself.
However, 	Plaintiff 	is 	currently 	incarcerated 	and 	lacks 	the 	resources 	to 	adequately
communicate with lawyers.
More importantly, Plaintiff is 100% blind and has been since 1994. 	(Rec. doc. 1).
Although he represents himself in this matter, he currently has a friend and fellow inmate,
Derrick Jerome Allen, helping him file pleadings. (Rec. doc. 20). Plaintiff alleges that prison
officials have retaliated against Allen by taking his law-related work and damaging his law
books and legal materials with the intention of forcing Allen to discontinue helping Plaintiff
in this matter. (Id.). He also claims that the law library at the prison is inadequate and the
staff who work in the library do not know about civil law or federal law. (Id.). Plaintiff argues
that because he is blind and cannot see, he is not in position to present or investigate his case
adequately.
Plaintiff’s complaint involves several Defendants and grievances. The complexity of
the case is certainly increased with the Plaintiffs inability to see. Further, Plaintiff alleges he
is the only 100% blind person in the facility and that since RCC is not ADA compliant, the
Case 2:25-cv-01943-BWA-MBN Document 27 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 4

facility is not accessible or designed to properly house offenders that are 100% blind like
himself.
Upon considering the factors stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met his
burden of establishing why the appointment of counsel is necessary. Plaintiff is indigent,
incarcerated, and fully blind. Thus, it is evident that he is incapable of presenting his case
adequately and he is not a position to investigate his case sufficiently. 	Further, he is
incapable of litigating this case on his own. Appointment of counsel would be of service to
the court and the defendant not only by sharpening the issues in the case but by ensuring the
legal process is fair and acceptable.
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion
to Appoint Counsel (rec doc. 20) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before April 24. 2026, the FBA-NO Pilot
Program Coordinator is to undertake a search for an attorney from the Civil Pro Bono Counsel
Panel for the appointment and provide that attorney’s name and contact information to the
undersigned. 	Once that information is received, the Court will issue an order directing the
Clerk of Court to designate that attorney on the docket sheet as counsel for Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this order to
the Program Coordinator.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of 	, 2026.
____________________________________________
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March	30th
Case 2:25-cv-01943-BWA-MBN Document 27 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 4