Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 21, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT David J. Bradley, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTOPHER LEE CHAPA, § Plaintiff, ; VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-174 CAMERON BROWN, ef al., Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), entered on August 28, 2019. (D.E. 12). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss any claims against Defendants in their official capacities and retain the claims against Defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiff timely responded, which the Court construes as an objection to the M&R, on September 11, 2019. (D.E. 14). The Court construes Plaintiffs response and his attachment of the Jail Inmate Handbook as an objection to dismissing claims against the officers in their official capacities. Although the Court reads the documents as an attempt to plead an official policy toward such claims, the Court finds that there it is not enough in the pleadings or the objections to state a claim against the officers in their official capacities and/or against San Patricio County. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,

(1989); Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs.,

(1978). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections. Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (D.E. 14). This Court has the

1/2

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent plaintiffs in a section 1983 civil rights case if doing so would advance the proper administration of justice. See Ulmer v. Chancellor,

(Sth Cir. 1982). However, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Lopez v. Reyez,

(Sth Cir. 1982). The Court is only required to appoint counsel, such that the denial of counsel constitutes an abuse of discretion, where the case presents exceptional circumstances. Ulmer,

. One of the factors this Court must consider is the complexity of the issues.

. The Court does not find exceptional circumstances to be present here, nor does the issue in this case appear to be complex. Further, the Court does not see that appointment of counsel will advance the proper administration of justice at this early stage of the case. As such, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED at this time. Thus, after reviewing the facts, conclusions of law, and recommendation set forth in the M&R, as well as Plaintiffs objections and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the M&R to which the objections were directed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS as its own the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 12). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants in their individual capacities are RETAINED. The claims against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED. SIGNED and ORDERED this _2-/? □ day of February 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2