United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10594

Clarence D. Brown, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Tarrant County, Texas; Dee Anderson, Individually, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-698

Before Clement, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge:

Clarence Brown is a civilly committed sexually violent predator under 

Texas law. In his third appeal in this case, he challenges the district court’s 

dismissal of his § 1983 claims against Tarrant County and its former sheriff, 

Dee Anderson, based on Brown’s twenty-day confinement in a county jail 

during which he did not receive sex offender treatment. Because Anderson is

entitled to qualified immunity and because Brown states no claim against the 

county, Brown’s claims were properly dismissed. Additionally, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motions to amend his 

complaint and to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 18, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

2

I

Our previous opinions in this case detail Brown’s challenges to certain 

conditions of his civil confinement under the Texas Sexually Violent 

Predator Act (“SVPA” or “Act”), Tex. Health & Safety Code 

Ann. §§ 841.001–.153 (West 2019). See generally Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 

235, 239–42 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Brown II”); Brown v. Taylor, 829 F.3d 365, 

367–68 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Brown I”); see also In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 

S.W.3d 637, 645–56 (Tex. 2005) (upholding constitutionality of original 

SVPA). To summarize briefly: In 1998, Brown was convicted in Texas state 

court of one count of aggravated assault on a peace officer and three counts 

of sexual assault and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Brown II, 911 

F.3d at 240. Before Brown’s anticipated release in October 2011, the state 

initiated civil commitment proceedings against him under the SVPA. Id.

After a jury proceeding, the trial court ordered Brown civilly committed in 

November 2010, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. Id.

The version of the SVPA relevant here required civilly committed 

persons to “reside in a Texas residential facility under contract with the 

[Texas Office of Violent Sex Offender Management (OVSOM)]” or another 

approved location and to participate in OVSOM-provided “treatment and 

supervision.”1 The Act made the OVSOM “responsible for providing . . . 

treatment and supervision” and “enter[ing] into appropriate memoranda of 

understanding for any necessary supervised housing,” while directing that 

1 See Act of June 17, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch. 1201, § 8, sec. 841.082, 2011 

Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 1201 (West) (amended 2015, 2017) (current version at 

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.082).

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

3

the case manager, an OVSOM employee or contractor, would “provide 

supervision” and “coordinate . . . outpatient treatment and supervision.”2

In keeping with these requirements, Brown’s November 2, 2010,

commitment order provided he would “reside in supervised housing at a 

Texas residential facility under contract with” or approved by the Council

on Sex Offender Treatment (“Council”), the OVSOM’s predecessor.3

Additionally, Brown was ordered to comply with the “treatment provided by 

the Council” as well as the Council’s other written requirements, and

Brown’s case manager was ordered to “provide treatment and supervision” 

to Brown. The order also notified Brown he could be charged with a thirddegree felony for failing to comply with the SVPA’s commitment 

requirements.4

Brown alleges he was initially committed to a facility in El Paso and 

then transferred to a facility in Fort Worth in March 2012. During intake 

processing at the Fort Worth facility, Brown did not sign certain forms 

acknowledging and agreeing to the facility’s rules. This incident led to his

2 Id. §§ 841.007, 841.002(3), 841.083.

3 The OVSOM assumed responsibilities from the Council in September 2011. 

Council on Sex Offender Treatment, Texas Health & Human Services, 

https://hhs.texas.gov/doing-business-hhs/licensing-credentialing-regulation/

professional-licensing-certification-unit/council-sex-offender-treatment (last visited Jan. 

8, 2021); see also Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.083.

4 It is unclear whether the district court took judicial notice of Brown’s 

commitment order, but an appellate court may judicially notice certain facts, even if the 

district court did not. See United States v. Herrera-Ochoa, 245 F.3d 495, 501 (5th Cir. 2001); 

see also FED. R. EVID. 201(d) & Note to Subdivision (f). Brown filed the commitment 

order as part of a supplemental document to his first amended complaint and referenced it 

in his second amended complaint. Defendants do not dispute its accuracy. We may 

therefore consider it. See Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011).

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

4

arrest, indictment for violating the terms of his commitment, and 

confinement at the Tarrant County Jail as a pre-trial detainee. 

Brown posted bond on September 13, 2012. He was then transferred 

to the Cold Springs Jail, where Sheriff Dee Anderson agreed to confine 

Brown on receiving his commitment order, pursuant to a Memorandum of 

Understanding (“MOU”) with the Council. The MOU stated that Tarrant 

County would provide “housing, meals, and other usual services to [Council] 

clients” in the Tarrant County Adult Detention System Work Release 

Program. Meanwhile, the Council would bear responsibility for “obtaining 

and paying for all programs it require[d] for its clients” and for supervising 

them outside the Tarrant County program.

5

Although Brown was acquitted of violating his commitment terms on 

October 3, 2012, he remained at the Cold Springs Jail for more than a month 

before being transferred to a Houston facility. Brown did not receive sex 

offender treatment during the twenty-day period he was confined at Cold 

Springs between his posting bond and his acquittal. Brown II, 911 F.3d at 241. 

Treatment resumed after his acquittal. Id.

Brown filed a pro se complaint challenging the conditions of his 

confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 239. He originally sued multiple

defendants in their individual and official capacities, including Sheriff 

Anderson and Tarrant County. Id. at 242. Although we previously affirmed 

the dismissal of claims against most of these defendants, we vacated the 

5 The district court considered the MOU in ruling on Brown’s motion to dismiss, 

without objection. Brown does not object to our considering the MOU on appeal and relies 

on it to support his claims. Nevertheless, we note the propriety of taking judicial notice of 

the MOU as a “matter[] of public record directly relevant to the issue at hand,” which we 

may consider in reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Funk, 631 F.3d at 783; see also Basic Cap. 

Mgmt., Inc. v. Dynex Cap., Inc., 976 F.3d 585, 589 (5th Cir. 2020).

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

5

dismissal of Brown’s claims against Anderson and the county. Id. at 241–42,

247.6

In reviewing Brown’s first amended complaint, we concluded Brown 

had stated a due process claim against Anderson and Tarrant County. Id. at 

244. Based on the allegation that Brown “received no sex offender treatment 

while being held after posting bond,” which the state of Texas conceded,7 we 

held Brown had “sufficiently alleged” that “his post-bond confinement at 

the Cold Springs Jail was not reasonably related to supervision and 

treatment,” which we said represented a “cognizable due process claim.” Id.

(citing Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 265 (2001)). We also held Brown’s 

claims were cognizable against Anderson because Anderson “agreed to 

confine him within Anderson’s facility,” and thus cognizable against Tarrant 

County because Anderson was its sheriff. Id. (cleaned up). However, we 

found Brown had not stated a claim for his post-acquittal confinement at the 

Cold Springs Jail because the state “resumed providing him with sex offender 

treatment” after his acquittal and “permitted him to leave Cold Springs Jail 

pursuant to his supervision level.” Id. at 245. We also vacated the district 

court’s denial of leave to amend Brown’s first amended complaint. Id. at 247. 

On remand, the district court granted Brown leave to file a second 

amended complaint, and Anderson and Tarrant County were served for the 

first time. Shortly thereafter, they filed a joint motion to dismiss, which the 

district court granted based on Anderson’s entitlement to qualified immunity 

6 We also vacated the dismissal of Brown’s retaliation claim against Greg Basham, 

facility director at the Fort Worth facility, Brown II, 911 F.3d at 247, but the district court 

dismissed this claim again on remand, and Brown has not appealed.

7 NeitherAnderson nor Tarrant County had been served at the time of the previous

appeal. The state of Texas sought to participate in the appeal as an amicus curiae, but we 

deemed it to have appeared as a party. Brown II, 911 F.3d at 242 n.6. On remand, the district 

court dismissed Brown’s claims against Texas, and Brown has not appealed.

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

6

and Brown’s failure to state a municipal liability claim against Tarrant 

County. The district court also denied Brown’s motions for appointment of 

counsel and for leave to file a third amended complaint. This appeal followed. 

II

We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. 

Innova Hosp. San Antonio, L.P. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 892

F.3d 719, 726 (5th Cir. 2018). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter which, when taken as true, states ‘a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Pro se complaints receive a “liberal 

construction.” Carlucci v. Chapa, 884 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Even so, “mere conclusory 

allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue.” 

United States v. Woods, 870 F.2d 285, 288 n.3 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

“Under our precedent, we may ‘affirm on any ground supported by the 

record,’ . . . so long as the argument was raised below.” Gilbert v. Donahoe, 

751 F.3d 303, 311 (5th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

III

Brown’s pro se appeal argues the district court erred by (1) holding

Anderson was entitled to qualified immunity; (2) concluding Brown failed to 

state a municipal liability claim against Tarrant County; (3) denying Brown’s

motion to file a third amended complaint; and (4) denying Brown’s motion 

to appoint counsel. We address each issue in turn.

A

Government officials like Anderson enjoy qualified immunity “unless 

a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or 

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time 

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

7

of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011); see 

also Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262, 267 (5th Cir. 2020). We “have 

discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis 

to tackle first.” See al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735 (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 

U.S. 223, 236 (2009)).

Anderson asserts a qualified immunity defense to Brown’s claim that 

Anderson held him in the Cold Springs Jail under conditions that violated

due process. We choose to resolve Brown’s claim at step two of the qualified 

immunity analysis,8 finding that the asserted right was not “clearly 

established” at the time of Anderson’s conduct.

The precise question we must answer is “whether a reasonable officer 

could have believed [his conduct] to be lawful, in light of clearly established 

law and the information the officer[] possessed.” Keller v. Fleming, 952 F.3d 

216, 225 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 

(1987)) (cleaned up). “[W]e must frame the [clearly established law 

question] with specificity and granularity,” Morrow v. Meachum, 917 F.3d 

870, 874–75 (5th Cir. 2019), for “[t]he dispositive question is whether the 

violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Id. (quoting 

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (per curiam)). The plaintiff must 

8 This avoids any potential conflict with the law-of-the-case doctrine, which 

generally prevents us from considering issues decided in a previous appeal. See USPPS, 

Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 647 F.3d 274, 282 (5th Cir. 2011). Our prior opinion 

concluded Brown had stated a due process claim against Anderson, Brown II, 911 F.3d at 

244, and Brown’s second amended complaint pleads facts identical to those we previously 

examined. We note, however, that the issue of qualified immunity was not before the prior 

panel because the Texas Attorney General did not brief a qualified immunity defense and 

Anderson himself was not served until after the panel decision. Anderson claimed qualified 

immunity for the first time before the district court on remand, and we consider his 

entitlement to immunity for the first time now. See, e.g., Med. Ctr. Pharmacy v. Holder, 634 

F.3d 830, 834 (5th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “an issue that is not expressly or implicitly 

decided on appeal does not become part of the law of the case”). 

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

8

identify controlling precedent that makes the unlawfulness of the officer’s 

conduct sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would have understood his 

conduct violated that right. Keller, 952 F.3d at 225 (citing Reichle v. Howards, 

566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)).

Brown argues that when Anderson confined him in the Cold Springs 

Jail, it was clearly established that a person may be civilly confined only under 

conditions reasonably related to the purpose for which he was committed. He 

points out that “due process requires that the conditions and duration of 

confinement . . . bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which 

persons are committed.” Seling, 531 U.S. at 265. Thus, Brown argues, it 

should have been clear to Anderson that confining Brown without providing 

sex offender treatment was unlawful. 

We disagree. Brown fails to frame the question with “specificity and 

granularity.” Morrow, 917 F.3d at 874–75. We must ask whether Anderson’s 

“particular conduct,” id., was clearly unlawful. Brown would hold Anderson

liable specifically because (1) pursuant to a MOU with the county, Anderson 

agreed to hold Brown, a civilly committed sex offender, in a county jail for 

twenty days, (2) while providing him housing, meals, and other services, but 

not sex offender treatment or supervision, (3) where OVSOM (and not 

Anderson) had exclusive responsibility under the SVPA and the confinement 

order to coordinate Brown’s supervision and treatment. See, e.g., Thompson 

v. Upshur County, 245 F.3d 447, 460 (5th Cir. 2001) (defining the clearly 

established law question at a similar level of specificity).

Brown has not shown that the unlawfulness of this specific conduct

was clearly established at the time of his confinement. First, Brown cites our 

prior opinion in this case; but there we decided only whether the facts alleged

crossed the Twombly threshold for stating a due process violation. See Brown

II, 911 F.3d at 244. We did not purport to address whether Anderson’s 

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

9

actions violated clearly established law. Second, Brown cites various 

Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit opinions recognizing due process rights of 

confined persons under various circumstances. See, e.g., Youngberg v. Romeo, 

457 U.S. 307, 324 (1982) (where intellectually disabled person was confined 

at state institution, due process required provision of “such training as an 

appropriate professional would consider reasonable to ensure his safety”); 

Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305, 1313–16 (5th Cir. 1974) (federal court could 

order state board to provide constitutionally adequate treatment for mental 

health patients civilly committed to state facilities).9 But those decisions are 

far afield from the scenario before us. None involve the situation where the 

legal responsibility for providing required treatment rests not on the 

detaining official but on a different entity altogether.

Moreover, at the time of the challenged conduct, there was a circuit 

split on the underlying question of whether sexually violent or dangerous 

offenders have a due process right to treatment in the first place. Compare

Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding due process 

right to mental health treatment for persons civilly committed as sexually 

violent predators), and Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076, 1079 (7th Cir. 2003) 

(holding civilly confined pre-trial detainees charged with sex offenses are 

“entitled to some kind of treatment”), with Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 

557 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding no “fundamental due process right to sex 

offender treatment”). In light of that disagreement, upon which our circuit 

9 See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535–36, 543 (1979) (government did not 

violate pre-trial detainees’ due process right to non-punitive conditions of confinement by 

imposing a “double-bunking” rule); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972) (state

could not constitutionally commit pre-trial detainee for indefinite period based solely on 

alleged incapacity to stand criminal trial); Morales v. Turman, 562 F.2d 993, 997–98 (5th 

Cir. 1977) (observing that the case law “ha[d] not universally accepted a right to treatment 

for the mentally ill”).

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

10

had not spoken, we cannot say that Anderson’s failure to provide Brown with 

sex offender treatment—where, again, the obligation for doing so lay 

elsewhere—violated clearly established law.

Thus, when the question is pitched at the right level of specificity, 

Anderson’s actions do not appear “objectively unreasonable in light of 

clearly established law . . . at the time the defendant acted.” Turner v. 

Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 691 (5th Cir. 2017). The sole relevant act 

Brown attributes to Anderson is signing the MOU or otherwise agreeing to 

confine him. But, as Anderson aptly explains, he had solid reason to believe 

that Brown’s confinement in the Cold Springs Jail was lawful under Brown’s 

commitment order, the SVPA, and the MOU. Moreover, at the time of the 

confinement, the Supreme Court had “repeatedly upheld civil commitment 

laws” similar to Texas’ SVPA against various constitutional challenges, as 

the district court pointed out. See, e.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 

126, 129–130 (2010); Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 411–415 (2002); Seling, 

531 U.S. at 266–67; Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360, 368–69 (1997). 

And, as we noted in our 2018 opinion, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the 

constitutionality of the original SVPA in 2005. Brown II, 911 F.3d at 239 

(citing Fisher, 164 S.W.3d at 637). Brown does not point to any authority that 

would have alerted Anderson to the unconstitutionality of Brown’s 

confinement.

10 Because “it cannot be said that all reasonable sheriffs would 

recognize the unconstitutionality of [Anderson]’s supervisory or personal 

acts or omissions,” Thompson, 245 F.3d at 461, Anderson’s acts were not 

10 Brown alleges that he sent letters to Anderson and members of the Tarrant 

County Commissioners’ Court in late October 2012 notifying them of his unlawful 

confinement in the Cold Springs Jail, but Brown had already been acquitted by that time 

and was receiving sex offender treatment. Brown II, 911 F.3d at 241.

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

11

objectively unreasonable. Anderson is therefore entitled to qualified 

immunity, as the district court correctly concluded.

B

We next address Brown’s municipal liability claim against Tarrant 

County, which the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.

“[M]unicipal liability under § 1983 is limited to deprivations of 

federally protected rights caused by action taken ‘pursuant to official 

municipal policy of some nature.’” Cherry Knoll, L.L.C. v. Jones, 922 F.3d 

309, 316–17 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 

658, 691 (1978)). Such official policy may take the form of “a policy 

statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and 

promulgated by that body’s officers.” Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, 614 

F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 

112, 121 (1988)). “Alternatively, municipal liability may attach where the 

constitutional deprivation is pursuant to a governmental custom, even if such 

custom has not received formal approval.” Id. (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 

690–91). 

To state a claim under Monell and its progeny, Brown had to 

sufficiently allege (1) that “an official policymaker with actual or constructive 

knowledge of the constitutional violation acted on behalf of the 

municipality”; (2) that the allegedly unconstitutional action constitutes a 

“custom or policy”; and (3) that there was “a violation of constitutional 

rights whose moving force is the policy or custom.” Zarnow, 614 F.3d at 166–

169 (citations omitted); see also Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. 

ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 866–67 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Brown fails the second Monell prong because he did not link his

allegedly unconstitutional confinement to any county “policy or custom.”

See Zarnow, 614 F.3d at 171 (court need not consider “moving force” prong

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

12

because it found no “custom or policy”).11 An “official policy” may take two 

forms—either a “policy statement formally announced by an official 

policymaker” or a “persistent widespread practice of city officials or 

employees, which, although not authorized by officially adopted and 

promulgated policy, is so common and well settled as to constitute a custom 

that fairly represents municipal policy.” Zarnow, 614 F.3d at 168–69 (citation 

omitted). Brown asserts the first kind of policy, but he is mistaken.

Brown identifies the relevant policy as the MOU, which he claims

facilitated his unconstitutional confinement in the Cold Springs Jail. Brown, 

however, does not allege the MOU itself required Tarrant County to deny 

him sex offender treatment, which, as we previously recognized, was the sole 

basis for his due process claim. See Brown II, 911 F.3d at 244–45. Nor does he 

allege the MOU was “promulgated with deliberate indifference to the 

‘known or obvious consequences’ that constitutional violations would 

result.” See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 579 (5th Cir. 2001) 

(quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 407 

(1997)). Thus, Brown has not pled an official policy of denying sex offender 

treatment in Tarrant County jails.

Even if we charitably interpret Brown as arguing Tarrant County had 

a custom of denying sex offender treatment, he fails to plead sufficient facts to 

show that second basis for finding a “policy” under Monell. Brown identified 

only one instance of the county’s confining a committee without treatment—

his own—but “[i]solated violations are not the persistent, often repeated, 

constant violations, that constitute custom and policy as required for 

municipal section 1983 liability.” Piotrowski, 237 F.3d at 581 (quoting Bennett

11 We therefore need not consider whether Brown’s claim also fails the other two 

Monell prongs.

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

13

v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 768 n.3 (5th Cir. 1984)); see also Davidson v. 

City of Stafford, 848 F.3d 384, 396–97 (5th Cir. 2017) (finding three arrests 

over three and a half years did not establish a pattern of constitutional 

violations).12

Because Brown cannot satisfy the second Monell prong, the district 

court properly dismissed his municipal liability claim.

C

Finally, we turn to the district court’s denial of Brown’s motions for 

leave to amend his complaint and to appoint counsel, both of which we review 

for abuse of discretion. Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 

2003) (motion for leave to amend); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 

1987) (request for counsel).

Brown moved to amend his second amended complaint to present 

claims related to the MOU. While courts should “freely give leave” to 

amend a complaint “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), 

we see no abuse of discretion in the denial of Brown’s motion. As the district 

court explained, the MOU is a public document dating from July 2011 that 

Brown already had “a fair opportunity” to challenge. The court also pointed 

out that the proposed amendment would be futile because Brown failed to 

explain how the MOU might defeat Anderson’s qualified immunity or 

12 Brown also cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 

475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986), arguing Tarrant County can be liable, even if Brown’s case was 

an “isolated incident,” because a policymaker’s single act may establish liability. But 

Brown waived this argument by failing to raise it before the district court. Zarnow, 614 F.3d 

at 170 (because Zarnow “did not allege in the district court that Chief Coughlin personally 

committed [the alleged violation],” he waived his argument on appeal that “a single 

incident of unconstitutional conduct by a policymaker may impute liability to the City”).

We therefore do not consider it.

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/18/2021
No. 19-10594

14

support municipal liability. We therefore conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motion to amend. See Rosenzweig, 

332 F.3d at 864 (denying leave to amend may be justified by, inter alia, 

“undue delay . . . [or] futility of the amendment” (quoting Foman v. Davis, 

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962))).

13

Nor does Brown show the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his motion to appoint counsel. There is no right to appointed counsel 

in § 1983 cases, and a district court need appoint counsel only in “exceptional 

circumstances,” considering “the type and complexity of the case and the 

abilities of the individual pursuing that case.” Cupit, 835 F.2d at 86 (citation 

omitted); see also Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007).

Brown asked for appointed counsel to help him investigate his case and assist 

at trial because he could not afford to hire an attorney. The district court 

found the relevant factors weighed against granting his motion. Our review 

of the record confirms Brown’s ability to adequately address the pertinent

issues, which our previous opinion significantly narrowed, without counsel’s 

assistance. See Brown II, 911 F.3d at 247. Because no exceptional 

circumstances merited appointed counsel, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Brown’s motion.

***

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

13 See also, e.g., Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 

368, 378–79 (5th Cir. 2014) (no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend when movant 

had two previous chances to amend and a third would have been futile); ABC Arbitrage 

Plaintiffs Grp. v. Tchuruk, 291 F.3d 336, 362 (5th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion where 

plaintiffs had “almost two years to investigate and substantiate their claims” and “the 

court offered [them] a [second] chance to replead” before denying them a third).

Case: 19-10594 Document: 00515709789 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/18/2021