U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2017

Trent Taylor v. Marion Williams

Trent Taylor v. Marion Williams
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided December 21, 2017

Trent Taylor v. Marion Williams

Opinion

Case: 16-11355 Document: 00514282258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 16-11355 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar December 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce TRENT TAYLOR, Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROBERT STEVENS, Warden, Individually and in their official capacity; ROBERT RIOJAS, Sergeant of Corrections Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; RICARDO CORTEZ, Sergeant of Corrections Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; STEPHEN HUNTER, Correctional Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; LARRY DAVIDSON, Correctional Officer, Individually and in their official capacity; CREASTOR HENDERSON, L.V.N., Individually and in their official capacity; STEPHANIE ORR, L.V.N., Individually and in their official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14-CV-149

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Trent Taylor, Texas prisoner # 1691384, has appealed the district court’s interlocutory order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We will not

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 16-11355 Document: 00514282258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2017

No. 16-11355 overturn a district court’s decision regarding appointment of counsel unless the appellant shows a “clear abuse of discretion.” Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Because this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring appointment of counsel, Taylor has failed to make such a showing. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.