Smith v. Tarrant County Texas ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-10449
    Summary Calendar
    JOHN SMITH,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS; TIM CURRY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    (4:01-CV-97-Y)
    --------------------
    December 12, 2002
    Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Plaintiff-Appellant John Smith, Texas state prisoner # 641206,
    challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    civil rights lawsuit.   Smith argues that the district court erred
    when it denied his motion to amend his complaint to substitute the
    Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department in place of Tarrant County,
    Texas.   The district court concluded that Smith’s claims against
    Tarrant County were not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
    Smith does not contest this conclusion in his appeal.     Therefore,
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
    leave to amend because an amendment substituting one party for
    another would have been futile. See McKinney v. Irving Indep. Sch.
    Dist.,      F.3d.   (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2002) (No. 01-10233), 
    2002 WL 31202748
    , *6.
    Smith also argues that the district court erred when it denied
    his request for assistance of counsel.        The district court did not
    treat Smith’s request as a separate motion, but rather implicitly
    denied the request when it dismissed Smith’s complaint.               Smith has
    not shown that this is an exceptional case of the type and
    complexity    warranting   appointment   of   counsel.       See      Ulmer       v.
    Chancellor, 
    691 F.2d 209
    , 213 (5th Cir. 1982).              Therefore, the
    district court’s implicit denial of Smith’s request for appointment
    of counsel was not an abuse of discretion.
    The district court’s judgment is
    AFFIRMED.
    S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\02\02-10449.0.wpd
    4/29/04 8:42 am
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-10449

Filed Date: 12/13/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021