Opinion ID: 70922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s April 26, 2007 Order

Text: Gilbert also claims that the district court erred when, in its April 26, 2007 order, it denied him his right to conduct discovery. We have reviewed this order, however, and cannot conclude that the district court outright denied Gilbert the right to conduct any and all discovery. The district court’s April 26, 2007 order is actually a “Service of Process” order, in which the district court declared that “[n]o further discovery will be allowed except on further order of the Court.” This is routine procedure at such an early stage in the proceedings, and as a result, does not constitute an abuse of discretion. In cases involving qualified immunity questions of this nature, the district court is correct to resolve the question of qualified immunity prior to permitting the plaintiff to proceed with discovery. This is because the Supreme Court has “made clear that 14 Case: 08-20296 Document: 00511018361 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/02/2010 No. 08-20296 the ‘driving force’ behind creation of the qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure that ‘insubstantial claims against government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery.’” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, n. 2 (1987)). Qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). As a result, we find no error in the district court’s April 26, 2007 order. C. The District Court’s Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel We review a district court’s denial of a motion for appointment of counsel for abuse of discretion. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 1985). “A federal court has discretion to appoint counsel if doing so would advance the proper administration of justice.” Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1976)). The district court should consider four factors in ruling on a request for appointed counsel: “(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether [Gilbert] is capable of adequately presenting [his] case; (3) whether [Gilbert] is in a position to investigate adequately the case; and (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross examination.” Id. We note that although the district court did not explicitly discuss each of the four Ulmer factors, the district court’s analysis indicates that these factors were sufficiently considered. When the district court denied Gilbert’s motion for appointment of counsel on October 24, 2007, the district court reasoned that: The primary issue presented in this case, which concerns whether individual police officers used excessive force to arrest the plaintiff during the commission of an armed robbery that involved hostages, 15 Case: 08-20296 Document: 00511018361 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/02/2010 No. 08-20296 is fairly straight forward. The record reflects that the plaintiff’s pleadings and motions are lengthy, detailed, articulate, and adequately researched. At this time, the case does not present exceptional circumstances showing that appointment of counsel is necessary. We have reviewed the Plaintiff-Appellant’s pleadings and submitted evidence, and concur in the district court’s assessment that given the detailed arguments and evidence Gilbert has thus far presented, he is capable of adequately presenting his case. This is not the sort of case that will require special skill such as is necessary to cross-examine a witness or give a closing argument in a courtroom. As such, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying Gilbert’s motion for appointment of counsel on October 24, 2007.6