IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50879

Summary Calendar

LEOLA ADELENA STUART, on behalf of B. O. S., minor child, on behalf of 

O. B. S., a minor child, 

Plaintiff – Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; STATE OF TEXAS; BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY; MARLENE J. STUART,

Defendants – Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CV-439

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pro se Appellant Leola Adelana Stuart appeals the denial of her request 

for appointment of counsel and the dismissal of her lawsuit asserting violations 

of her constitutional rights. In her complaint, Appellant claimed that Marlene 

J. Stuart, the State of Texas, and the Bexar County District Attorney were 

responsible for removing Appellant’s grandchildren from her home against her 

* 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 9, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50879 Document: 00512590137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2014
No. 13-50879

will. Appellant’s complaint also included various allegations against unnamed

San Antonio police officers. Appellant sought to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and requested the appointment of counsel. The district 

court referred this motion to the magistrate judge, who permitted Appellant to 

proceed in forma pauperis, but denied the appointment of counsel. The 

magistrate judge also prepared a thorough report recommending that 

Appellant’s complaint be dismissed as factually frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and for failure to state a claim. The district court adopted the 

magistrate’s report, and dismissed the case. Having little to add to the opinion 

below, we now affirm. 

This court reviews the dismissal of Appellant’s claims as frivolous for 

abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The decision 

regarding the appointment of counsel is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

Culprit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). A dismissal for failure to state 

a claim is reviewed de novo. Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex 

rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012). 

The district court was well within its discretion to dismiss Appellant’s 

claims as frivolous. Appellant’s complaint recites a series of seemingly 

unconnected events that have happened to her since 1998. Although she 

frequently refers to “Defendants,” she does not state which defendant is 

responsible for each alleged harm. Further, Appellant’s complaint asserts no 

grounds for jurisdiction against any defendant. Her complaint does not 

identify the authority under which she seeks to represent her grandchildren,

or establish that she had legal custody over them in the first place. Appellant’s 

allegations, taken together, are clearly baseless. 

Appellant also fails to state a claim. Her claim against Marlene J. Stuart 

fails because she does not allege that this Appellee, a non-state actor, engaged 

2

 Case: 13-50879 Document: 00512590137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2014
No. 13-50879

in an agreement with state actors to deprive Appellant of her constitutional 

rights. Tebo v. Tebo, 550 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 2008). Her claim against the 

City of San Antonio fails because she does not allege that the city caused a

constitutional tort through the execution of a policy or custom. Monell v. Dep’t 

of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Her allegations against the State of 

Texas fail because she has not established standing and because of state 

sovereign immunity. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Haldermann, 

465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984). Her claims against the Bexar County District 

Attorney fail because she has not established standing and because of 

prosecutorial immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976).

We also agree that Appellant has not shown the “exceptional 

circumstances” necessary to warrant the appointment of counsel. Cupit, 

835 F.2d at 86. The appointment of counsel is dependent upon, inter alia, the 

type and complexity of the case. Id. Appellant has not shown that her case was 

factually or legally complex. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 

3

 Case: 13-50879 Document: 00512590137 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2014