Naranjo v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 13 November 2015
• Docket Number: 14–50200.,Nos. 13–50541,s. 13–50541
• Citation: 809 F.3d 793
• Parties: Mario NARANJO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Bobby THOMPSON; GEO Group, Incorporated; George Zoly; Clarence Antony; Richard Clanton; Anne Newman; Christopher Wheeler ; Normen Carlson, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

809 F.3d 793

Mario NARANJO, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Bobby THOMPSON; GEO Group, Incorporated; George Zoly; Clarence Antony; Richard Clanton; Anne Newman; Christopher Wheeler ; Normen Carlson, Defendants–Appellees.

Nos. 13–50541

14–50200.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 13, 2015.

Mario Naranjo, Miami, FL, pro se.

Shawn Kevin Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick & Kosanovich, P.C., San Antonio, TX, Denis Carl Dennis, Kelly, Morgan, Dennis, Corzine & Hansen, P.C., Odessa, TX, for Defendant–Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:

Mario Naranjo, proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, appeals the district court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel to help litigate his civil rights claims against the management company of the prison where he was incarcerated. Despite finding that Naranjo "ha[d] demonstrated the exceptional circumstances to warrant the appointment of counsel," the district court denied the motion because it had no funding with which to compensate an appointed attorney, and it could find "no attorneys in the area willing or able to take the case pro bono. " While Naranjo's appeal of that ruling was pending before this court, proceedings continued below, and the district court entered summary judgment against Naranjo, which he now also appeals. Because federal courts have inherent power to order counsel to accept an uncompensated appointment under the limited factual circumstances here, we VACATE the district court's orders denying appointment of counsel and entering summary judgment and REMAND for consideration of whether a compulsory appointment is warranted.

I.

While incarcerated at the Reeves County Detention Center (Reeves III) in Pecos, Texas,¹ Naranjo sued the company managing the prison, GEO Group, Inc., and several of its directors and employees, for multiple violations of his constitutional rights. Naranjo was sentenced to serve his term of imprisonment in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and was transferred in 2009 to Reeves III, a facility owned by Reeves County and managed by GEO Group. Naranjo alleged that prison officials: (1) violated his procedural due process rights by responding with deliberate indifference toward grievances that he filed; (2) violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by maintaining Reeves III at 166% of its capacity after several day rooms were converted into dormitories; (3) maintained Reeves III without proper regard for fire safety; (4) failed to maintain sanitary toilets in the outdoor recreation area, forcing inmates to make a daily choice between exercise and hygienic bathroom facilities and to endure unsanitary conditions throughout the prison; (5) provided insufficient medical care to service the increased population at Reeves III; (6) forced him to perform labor on behalf of GEO Group; and (7) denied him equal protection of the law by transferring him to Reeves III because he is Hispanic. Naranjo brought his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking both damages and injunctive relief. After evaluating the complaint and determining "that summary dismissal [wa]s not appropriate" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge.

Before either party had requested discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment. Naranjo failed to respond within the eleven-day period dictated by local court rules, and the magistrate judge ordered him to respond within the following two weeks or risk the summary judgment motion being treated as unopposed. Naranjo mailed a response eight days later, but it was not received by the clerk and filed until a month after the magistrate judge's order. On the day the response was filed, and presumably without having seen it, the magistrate judge issued an order noting that, despite the magistrate judge's earlier warning, Naranjo "ha[d] still not responded" to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Naranjo re-sent his opposition to summary judgment, explaining the wire-crossing and displaying considerable frustration. For the first time, Naranjo moved for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The magistrate judge denied the motion because "the case is still in the pretrial phase," "the present cause of action is not complex, and Plaintiff will be able to adequately present his case."

While defendants' motion for summary judgment was pending, Naranjo filed several interrogatories and requests for documents. Among his discovery requests, Naranjo asked that defendants produce schematics reflecting the original design of Reeves III, the names of corrections officers assigned to the Reeves III recreation yard between April 2009 and January 2010, and schematics or other documents reflecting the conversion of Reeves III day rooms into dormitories. In their objections to all three discovery requests, defendants cited prison security concerns. Acknowledging those concerns, the magistrate judge ordered that all three items be filed under seal, and defendants complied.

Naranjo moved under Rule 56(d) to delay summary judgment pending additional discovery. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on all of Naranjo's claims and subsequently denied the Rule 56(d) motion. After Naranjo submitted objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, the district court adopted the recommendations in part but denied summary judgment as to three of Naranjo's claims. For each of the three surviving claims—Naranjo's Eighth Amendment overcrowding, fire safety, and sanitation claims—the district court determined that conflicting or under-developed evidence precluded summary judgment. The magistrate judge then issued an order addressing Naranjo's outstanding discovery requests and scheduling an evidentiary hearing.

A week before the evidentiary hearing, Naranjo moved a second time for the appointment of counsel. Referencing the upcoming hearing, Naranjo indicated that he "cannot participate because to do so properly would require more legal skills than the Plaintiff has or can develope [sic]." He professed to being "unqualified to either present or cross-examine those witnesses" necessary to the presentation of his claims. Naranjo also noted that the case "involves credibility issues and conflicting testimony." A week after the evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge ordered Naranjo to indicate what efforts he had already made to secure counsel on his own behalf. Naranjo responded that, as a native of Florida, he was not familiar with legal organizations in Texas, but he had contacted the American Civil Liberties Union office in Austin to ask for a referral and had not received any response.

At the evidentiary hearing, Naranjo did not introduce any evidence. After being repeatedly asked by the magistrate judge whether he had any evidence to submit on the fire-safety claim, Naranjo explained:

Your Honor, with all due respect, I'm going to be standing by my declaration, the sworn pleadings that I've also put in throughout the hearing—proceedings, and that's as far as I'm going to—I have no other evidence. I have been denied access to any reports, I do not—I'm not a trained attorney, I do not know how to conduct an evidentiary hearing, so I have to stand by my sworn declaration and my verified pleadings.

Naranjo responded similarly when asked whether he had evidence to submit on the overcrowding claim and the sanitation claim. When asked whether he wanted to cross-examine the only witness at the hearing, former Reeves III Warden Bobby Thompson (the named defendant), Naranjo replied: "Your Honor, I have no questions for Warden Thompson. I'm certainly not an attorney; I wouldn't know where to begin." When asked whether he had any objections to the defendants introducing as exhibits the Fire Emergency Plans that GEO Group had submitted to the BOP, Naranjo responded: "Your Honor, I—I don't have a clue as to what they mean, to be honest with you."

Naranjo twice complained that the denial of his discovery requests impeded his ability to present evidence and participate meaningfully in the hearing. He also noted several times that, without counsel, he could not access the documents that defendants had filed under seal. Each time, the magistrate judge replied that "these documents will be kept under seal at this time, and they may be reviewed by an attorney or expert, should this case go to a jury trial." After the magistrate judge had run through all of the outstanding discovery issues and asked Naranjo if he had any others, Naranjo responded: "I certainly don't at this point. As I mentioned before, I wish I could be more forthcoming, but I'm certainly not a professional in the law. And, you know, these discovery issues are just very confusing to me."

Nearly five months after the evidentiary hearing, the district court ruled on Naranjo's second motion for appointment of counsel. The district court found that "the circumstances surrounding the current stage of his lawsuit justify representation" and that Naranjo had "demonstrated the exceptional circumstances to warrant the appointment of counsel." The court focused on several "limitations" impeding Naranjo's ability to litigate his case uncounseled. In particular, the court weighed the fact that, in light of his status as an inmate, Naranjo was barred from viewing and responding to discovery that defendants had filed under seal due to security concerns. The district court also weighed the fact that presenting Naranjo's claims would likely involve conflicting testimony. All told, "the Court agree[d] that the appointment of counsel w[ould] expedite the lawsuit, promote judicial economy, and [wa]s ultimately justified under the circumstances."

Despite these findings, the district court denied the motion, lamenting that an appointment was...