Court Opinion

ID: 9556556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 18:00:27.284734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:59.147259
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50437         Document: 00516861582             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                      August 17, 2023
                                       No. 22-50437                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   Garland Ballentine,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Sergeant Heather Broxton; Jay Hart, SIGMO;
   Grievance Department Vicki Cundiff,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:19-CV-459
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges, and Saldaña,
   District Judge. +
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-appellant Garland Wayne Ballentine III is an administratively
   segregated prisoner in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal
   Justice (TDCJ) at the Hughes Unit in Gatesville, Texas. Ballentine filed a
   lawsuit against Sgt. Heather Broxton, Jay Hart, and Vicki Cundiff

          +
             United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
   designation.
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50437      Document: 00516861582           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                     No. 22-50437

   (collectively, “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was denied
   participation in TDCJ’s Gang Renunciation and Disassociation (“GRAD”)
   process—purportedly, the only method for Ballentine to exit solitary
   confinement as a former member of a prison gang—because of his refusal to
   provide self-incriminatory or false testimony during an interrogation by
   outside law enforcement. In his complaint, Ballentine alleged violations of his
   rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and
   sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and a preliminary
   injunction. In conjunction with his complaint, Ballentine filed motions to
   proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. In his motion for
   appointment of counsel, Ballentine noted that the case presented complex
   issues of law, that a trial would likely involve conflicting testimony, and that
   he was unable to afford counsel, had limited access to the prison law library,
   possessed limited knowledge of the law, and had diminished levels of
   intelligence and education.
          On August 12, 2019, the district court granted Ballentine leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis, directed Ballentine to provide a more definite
   statement, and denied Ballentine’s motion for appointment of counsel,
   finding that Ballentine failed to establish that (1) the issues were too complex,
   (2) he was incapable of bringing the issues on his own, or (3) that “appointed
   counsel is necessary to present meritorious issues to the Court.”
          On August 23, 2019, Ballentine responded to the district court’s order
   for more definite statement and filed a motion for reconsideration of the
   order denying his motion for appointed counsel, once again emphasizing his
   lack of intelligence and educational level. On October 15, 2019, the district
   court summarily denied Ballentine’s motion for reconsideration “for the
   reasons explained in the Court’s [August 12th] order” and without further
   explanation or consideration.

                                          2
Case: 22-50437      Document: 00516861582           Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                     No. 22-50437

          On December 13, 2019, without ordering a response from the
   defendants, the district court dismissed Ballentine’s complaint with
   prejudice sua sponte for failure to state a claim. Ballentine successfully
   appealed the dismissal to this Court with the help of appointed counsel. In a
   per curiam opinion, we vacated the district court’s order and remanded the
   case to the district court for further proceedings, instructing the district court
   to serve Defendants Broxton, Jay Hart, and Vicki Cundiff and “consider the
   arguments of both sides.” Our opinion noted that Ballentine’s complaint
   raised “complex issues” that would benefit from full briefing.
          After we remanded the case to the district court, Ballentine again
   motioned for appointed counsel to assist him in his case, noting that the
   issues were complex and that this Court had granted his motion for appointed
   counsel in his appellate proceedings. However, the district court summarily
   denied Ballentine’s motion for appointed counsel by referencing its original
   denial without deferring to this Court’s finding that the case presented
   complex constitutional issues or the fact that Ballentine’s appointed
   appellate counsel proved useful in directing our attention to relevant
   precedent. A month later, Defendants appeared in the underlying case, filing
   both an answer to Ballentine’s complaint and a motion to dismiss that was
   converted sua sponte into a motion for summary judgment by the district
   court. Over the course of the following month, Ballentine filed motions to
   compel discovery, amend his complaint, and add documents into the record,
   each of which the district denied for procedural deficiencies. Ballentine also
   cross-moved for summary judgment.
          The district court subsequently issued an order denying Ballentine’s
   request for discovery and motion for summary judgment, instead entering
   summary judgment in favor of the defendants. In its order, the district court
   found that Ballentine failed to establish that (1) his discovery requests were
   relevant to his claims, (2) his solitary confinement implicated a liberty

                                           3
Case: 22-50437      Document: 00516861582          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50437

   interest, (3) he had a right to participate in GRAD, (4) he was asked questions
   that would implicate his rights under the Fifth Amendment, and (5)
   Defendants were not shielded from liability by sovereign and qualified
   immunity. Ballentine timely appealed this decision, which we have
   jurisdiction to consider pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
          For the instant appeal, Ballentine retained the same appellate counsel
   that was appointed in his previous appeal. Ballentine’s appellate counsel
   abandoned his Eighth Amendment claims, instead focusing on his claims
   under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and adding a claim under the
   First Amendment based on a liberal construction of Ballentine’s pro se
   pleadings. Ballentine’s appellate counsel argues that we should reverse the
   district court and grant summary judgment to Ballentine or alternatively,
   reverse the district court’s decision to deny Ballentine’s motions for
   appointment of counsel and additional discovery. For the following reasons,
   we agree that the district court abused its discretion when it denied
   Ballentine’s motions for appointed counsel and that Ballentine should be
   appointed counsel to help him develop the factual record, amend his
   complaint, and present arguments on the complex issues of constitutional law
   at issue. As with our previous order, we conclude that the proper remedy is
   to remand this case back to the district court to address these complex issues
   in the first instance, this time with the benefit of a better developed record
   and briefing by plaintiff’s appointed counsel to assist the district court in
   making a just determination under the correct legal standards.
                               Standard of Review
          A district court’s denial of a pro se plaintiff’s motion for appointment
   of counsel is reversed “only if a clear abuse of discretion is shown.” Lozano
   v. Schubert, 41 F.4th 485, 492 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Cupit v. Jones, 835
   F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987)). When deciding an indigent plaintiff’s request
   for appointed counsel, a district court should consider whether “exceptional

                                         4
Case: 22-50437      Document: 00516861582           Page: 5   Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                     No. 22-50437

   circumstances” exist to merit appointment of counsel based on “(1) the type
   and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent is capable of adequately
   presenting his case; (3) whether the indigent 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. at 492 (quoting Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209,
   213 (5th Cir. 1982).
                                     Discussion
          In its initial order denying Ballentine’s motion for appointed counsel,
   the district court made the conclusory assertion that it had considered the
   Ulmer factors and found that Ballentine failed to establish that “the issues are
   too complex, that complainant is incapable of bringing them, or that
   appointed counsel is necessary to present meritorious issues to the Court.”
   The district court then dismissed Ballentine’s subsequent requests for
   appointed counsel by referencing its initial decision and failing to consider
   the proceedings that had occurred since that time. The district court’s
   repeated denials of these subsequent motions for appointed counsel were an
   abuse of its discretion for a few reasons.
          First, the district court should have re-considered its determination
   that the issues in this case were not “too complex” after the case was
   remanded. Our order noted that the case “presents complicated questions of
   constitutional law,” and the district court should have considered our
   decision to appoint appellate counsel in its complexity determination. See
   Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d 130, 141 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that “counsel
   might assist [the district court] in handling the particular complexities” of a
   case where the Fifth Circuit had found appellant’s appointed counsel
   beneficial). Second, the district court’s misstatement of the applicable legal
   standards under the Fifth Amendment and Due Process lends credence to

                                          5
Case: 22-50437      Document: 00516861582            Page: 6    Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                      No. 22-50437

   our initial evaluation of the complexity of the constitutional issues involved
   in this matter. The compounding failure to apply these standards in the light
   most favorable to Ballentine is further proof that appointment of counsel
   would help the district court to (1) sharpen the issues in the case and (2) make
   a just determination. See Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213 (citing Knighton v. Watkins,
   616 F.2d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 1980)) (noting that a district court should also
   consider whether appointment of counsel would benefit the court in making
   the proper decision). The district court’s failure to re-consider the Ulmer
   factors in light of our previous determination that this case presents
   complicated constitutional issues and Ballentine’s demonstrated inability to
   pursue his claims in accordance with procedural rules represents an abuse of
   the district court’s discretion.
          In sum, appointed counsel will be able to flesh out the complex
   constitutional issues involved in this case, properly identify the evidence to
   be considered in a summary judgment motion, and guide the district court in
   making a proper determination of whether summary judgment should be
   granted in favor of Defendants. See Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 272 (5th
   Cir. 1992) (ordering the district court to appoint counsel to assist the plaintiff,
   state, and federal court in resolving “important unanswered questions.”) As
   each of the Ulmer factors weighs strongly in favor of appointing counsel in
   this case, the Court must reverse the district court’s decision. The district
   court should grant appointed counsel the opportunity to amend Ballentine’s
   pleadings and conduct additional discovery that may be relevant to his case,
   including relevant portions of Ballentine’s Security Threat Group file, to
   further develop the factual record and sharpen the issues in this case. See
   Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 806 (5th Cir. 2015) (“If the district court
   appoints counsel on remand, it must then conduct all subsequent
   proceedings anew, including allowing for reasonable additional discovery.”).

                                           6
Case: 22-50437     Document: 00516861582           Page: 7   Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50437

                                   Conclusion
          For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying
   Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendants’ Motion
   for Summary Judgment is VACATED. The district court’s order denying
   Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is REVERSED, and the
   district court is instructed to appoint Ballentine competent counsel and allow
   counsel the opportunity to conduct additional, reasonable discovery. This
   case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         7
Case: 22-50437         Document: 00516861582              Page: 8       Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                          No. 22-50437

   Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge, concurring:
           I concur with the panel’s decision to reverse the district court’s denial
   of Ballentine’s motion for appointment of counsel. The panel correctly found
   that the district court abused its discretion in denying Ballentine’s request
   for appointed counsel. I believe that Ballentine has adequately shown that his
   case presents “exceptional circumstances” which merit the appointment of
   counsel. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). While not
   dispositive, our appointment of counsel for Ballentine’s previous appeal also
   weighs in favor of the appointment of counsel here. See Delaughter v. Woodall,
   909 F.3d 130, 141 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that “counsel might assist [the
   district court] in handling the particular complexities” of a case where the
   Fifth Circuit had found appellant’s appointed counsel beneficial).
           Nonetheless, I believe that the appointment of counsel serves, in this
   instance, as a proverbial “bridge to nowhere.” While counsel may assist
   Ballentine in obtaining the discovery he seeks, 1 I do not believe that any legal
   recourse is available as Ballentine has not demonstrated atypical or significant
   hardship in his conditions of imprisonment, a constitutional entitlement to
   the GRADS program, or a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. 2 Thus,
   while I concur with the panel’s decision to reverse the district court’s denial
   of Ballentine’s motion for appointment of counsel, I believe that there is no

           1
            This assumes all of the specified discovery was produced and its contents favored
   Ballentine’s allegations.
           2
             Ballentine fails to identify any question, set of questions, or interrogation where
   he might incriminate himself by responding. He simply highlights that law enforcement
   agencies sought to debrief him, and he declined to cooperate.

                                                8
Case: 22-50437     Document: 00516861582           Page: 9   Date Filed: 08/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50437

   relief available to Ballentine and that affirming the judgment of the district
   court would be proper.

                                         9