Tellez v. Scott, et al

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-10689
Summary Calendar
HUMBERTO TELLEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director; LESLIE WOODS;
TIMOTHY REVELLE; DENISE MCCARTY; VICKIE HOWARD;
TERRI EASON; ARTHUR ENNS; ROGER EASON; ALEXANDER
M. KALMANOV; HARRY EDWARDS, Unit Health Administrator;
UNKNOWN DOCTOR,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:00-CV-89-R
----------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2002
Before JOLLY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Humberto Tellez (Tellez), Texas prisoner #752637, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appeals the district court’s
April 17, 2001, order denying his motion for appointment of
counsel. Tellez argues that he is not qualified to represent himself; that he has vision and other

-- 1 of 2 --

medical problems; that he must rely on other inmates for legal counsel; that he does not have access
to a telephone, telephone book, typewriter, stapler, or means to investigate and question witnesses;
and that he is currently taking “psychiatric medication.” Tellez also moves this court for appointment
of counsel.
An interlocutory order denying the appointment of counsel in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case is
immediately appealable. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 409-13 (5th Cir. 1985). A trial court is
not required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff in a civil rights action unless there are
exceptional circumstances. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). We will
overturn a decision regarding appointment of counsel only if the appellant shows a “clear abuse of
discretion.” Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).
Tellez has not shown that the issues in his case are complex, that he is incapable of adequately
presenting his case, or that exceptional circumstances require the appointment of counsel. He thus
has not shown that the district court’s order denying appointed counsel was a clear abuse of
discretion. Cupit, 835 F.2d at 86. The district court’s denial of Tellez’s motion for appointment of
counsel is therefore AFFIRMED, and his motion for appointment of counsel to this court is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --