Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0794-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Scott Edward SATTLER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
    No. 15-51237
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed 05/23/2016
    Scott Edward Sattler, II, Austin, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Scott Edward Sattler, II, filed a civil action against the United States in which he maintained that the district court ignored his multiple requests for an accommodation — i.e., the appointment of counsel — that would have allowed him to overcome his alleged mental impairments and pursue his case. Sattler requested in-junctive relief and declaratory judgments that all United States citizens are entitled to equal protection and that poor and disabled plaintiffs filing civil complaints in federal court are entitled to appointed counsel. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Sattler moves for the appointment of counsel. Because he has not shown that this case presents exceptional circumstances meriting the appointment of counsel, his motion is denied. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). The appeal is dismissed because the record reflects that there is no nonfrivolous claim involving a cognizable case, controversy, or cause of action that Sattler could assert on appeal. His motions for an extension of time to file an appellate brief and for an expedited appeal are denied as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; MOTIONS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF AND FOR AN EXPEDITED APPEAL DENIED AS MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.