Case Name: Larry Lee BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. CLOUD, ID # 3221, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Martinez, ID # 3156, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Bell, ID #3146, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Walker, Sergeant, Fort Worth Police Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 03-10309
Parties: Larry Lee BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. CLOUD, ID # 3221, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Martinez, ID # 3156, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Bell, ID #3146, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Walker, Sergeant, Fort Worth Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 374–374

Head Matter:
Larry Lee BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. CLOUD, ID # 3221, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Martinez, ID # 3156, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Bell, ID #3146, Fort Worth Police Department; NFN Walker, Sergeant, Fort Worth Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-10309.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2003.
Larry Lee Butler, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Fort Stockton, TX, pro se.
Paul R. Sorenson, Jerry Murad, Jr., Mu-rad & Murad, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Larry Lee Butler, Texas prisoner # 116378, appeals the district court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, deprivation of property, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. He also requests the appointment of counsel. Butler contends that he is a layman of law and that the ends of justice require counsel be appointed to represent him.
Butler has not shown exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See Feist v. Jefferson County Comm'rs Court, 778 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir.1985); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir.1982). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for the appointment of counsel.
Butler's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.