Filed: Feb. 23, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 04-20030 Conference Calendar NIKITA VAN GOFFNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus J. SAUCEDA; Et Al., Defendants, J. SAUCEDA; C. DAVIDSON; T. TAYLOR; J. EVERITT; G. HARDAY; M. HOLT, Sergeant; J. FERRARO; G. HARDAGE; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY; MICHAEL MCDOUGAL; JIM PREWITT; CITY OF CONROE, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States Dis
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 04-20030 Conference Calendar NIKITA VAN GOFFNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus J. SAUCEDA; Et Al., Defendants, J. SAUCEDA; C. DAVIDSON; T. TAYLOR; J. EVERITT; G. HARDAY; M. HOLT, Sergeant; J. FERRARO; G. HARDAGE; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY; MICHAEL MCDOUGAL; JIM PREWITT; CITY OF CONROE, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States Dist..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
04-20030
Conference Calendar
NIKITA VAN GOFFNEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. SAUCEDA; Et Al.,
Defendants,
J. SAUCEDA; C. DAVIDSON; T. TAYLOR; J. EVERITT; G. HARDAY;
M. HOLT, Sergeant; J. FERRARO; G. HARDAGE; COUNTY OF
MONTGOMERY; MICHAEL MCDOUGAL; JIM PREWITT; CITY OF CONROE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CV-2638
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nikita Van Goffney, Texas prisoner # 1067755, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel
in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. The factual issues
surrounding Goffney’s claims are not unusual or highly complex
and are based on events that happened to him. Goffney has
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-20030
-2-
clearly and coherently stated his positions in his pleadings, and
he has included appropriate legal citations. We conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to
appoint counsel in this case. See Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d
209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.