Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51383/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 15, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51383

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT G. HART,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH HAIRSTON; KARL THOMAS, Major; JIMMY D. CRAIG,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-01-CV-151

--------------------

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court has certified that the captioned appeal

has not been taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and FED. R. APP. P. 24(a), and that Texas prisoner

Robert G. Hart (# 769108) should not be allowed to proceed

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. Hart has filed a motion to

proceed IFP on appeal, a pleading which this court construes as a

motion challenging the district court’s certification decision. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

 Case: 03-51383 Document: 005113550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2004
No. 03-51383

-2-

Hart avers that his case presents exceptional circumstances

because he is indigent, has no legal training, and is hindered

from investigating his case due to his incarceration in a maximum

security prison. Hart has raised legal points that are arguable

on their merits. Thus, Hart’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is

GRANTED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

However, the denial of Hart’s motion for appointment of

counsel is AFFIRMED as he has not shown exceptional circumstances

warranting the granting of such a motion. See Ulmer v.

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

IFP GRANTED; AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-51383 Document: 005113550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2004