* 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. 07-11284

Summary Calendar

ALLEN FITZGERALD CALTON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NFN JOHNSON, #6445; OFFICER NFN WILLIAMS, #5112; OFFICER NFN

TERRY; OFFICER NFN WALLS; OFFICER NFN MITCHELL

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-2022

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Allen Fitzgerald Calton, Texas prisoner # 1123880, filed a civil rights

complaint alleging, among other things, that he had been denied access to the

prison law library. After prescreening Calton’s case, the district court dismissed

that claim and the defendants against whom the claim had been brought.

Calton’s complaint also alleged that in April 2005, Officers Johnson and Wilson

were deliberately indifferent to his serious risk of suicide due to his mental

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11284

2

illness. The officers had given Calton a shaving razor and, when he was left

unsupervised, Calton used the razor to slice his wrists. Calton alleged the same

claim against Officers Terry, Walls, and Mitchell stemming from an identical

incidentin July 2005. The district court considered the merits of Calton’s claims

and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and against Calton.

On appeal, Calton argues that, after his case had been prescreened, the

district court should have on its own initiative appointed counsel for him. The

justification would have been Calton’s history of mental illness and the fact that

he was taking medication for that illness. He also argues that the district court

erred in denying his motion,filed after the summary judgment motions had been

submitted to the district court, expressly seeking the appointment of counsel.

In that motion, Calton stated that due to the confusion and inability to

concentrate caused by his medication regimen, he would need counsel to

represent him at the trial of this matter.

Despite Calton’s suicidal history, his mental illness, and the effect of his

medications, Calton consistently filed coherent pleadings that demonstrated his

ability to articulate the factual and legal issues of this case. Accordingly, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint counsel. See Cupit

v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213

(5th Cir. 1982). Calton proved himself capable of litigating his own case, and the

case never proceeded to trial. The record demonstrates the district court’s

reasons for the denial of Calton’s motion for the appointment of counsel. A

remand to have the court explain its reasoning is unnecessary. See Jackson v.

Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 1986).

Calton filed motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)

and 60(b) challenging the district court’s judgment. Calton sought to submit

evidence that he considered crucial to the success of his claims and of which he

had always been aware. Calton asserted, however, that he had failed to notice

the omission of that evidence when copying his summary judgment declaration
No. 07-11284

3

from a draft prepared for Calton by a fellow inmate. Calton contended that his

fellow inmate’s omission was responsible for his own omission. He now

challenges the district court’s denial of his postjudgment motions. Calton has

not shown the extraordinary circumstances that would warrant relief under Rule

59(e) due to his negligentfailure to present all ofthe available facts crucialto his

case in his summary judgment declaration. See ICEE Distribs., Inc. v. J & J

SnackFoods Corp., 445 F.3d 841, 847-48 (5th Cir. 2006);Templet v. HydroChem,

Inc., 367F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (“An unexcused failure to present evidence

available at the time of summary judgment provides a valid basis for denying a

subsequent motion for reconsideration.”). For that same reason, Calton has not

shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b)

motion. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).

Calton has also asked that we appoint counsel for him here. In an appeal

in a civil rights case, “exceptional circumstances” are usually needed for

appointment of counsel. Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994).

The issues presented are “neither peculiar nor complex,” and this “record is

sufficient, without further development or argument of counsel to support our

decision in this matter.” Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1998),

abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). There are no

exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of appellate counsel.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Calton’s motion for the

appointment of counsel is DENIED.