David Allan Edwards v. Gerald B. Phillips, M.D. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  /s
    Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    April 16, 2014
    No. 04-13-00725-CV
    David Allan EDWARDS,
    Appellant
    v.
    COUNTY OF ATASCOSA,
    Appellee
    From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 12-02-0185-CVA-A
    Honorable Thomas F. Lee, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    Appellant David Allan Edwards is an inmate acting pro se. We abated this appeal for the
    trial court to determine (1) whether Appellant is indigent, see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1; Higgins v.
    Randall County Sheriff’s Office, 
    257 S.W.3d 684
    , 688 (Tex. 2008), and if so, (2) whether
    Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.003 (West 2002).
    The trial court determined that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. On March 26, 2014, we
    sent Appellant a copy of the supplemental clerk’s record and ordered that he must file any
    response to the trial court’s frivolousness finding by April 15, 2014.
    On April 7, 2014, Appellant moved this court to extend the deadline for filing his
    response because jail officials were unreasonably restricting his access to his legal documents
    and to the law library. On April 10, 2014, Appellant filed his response to our March 26, 2014
    order. Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his response is MOOT.
    Appellant also moved this court to appoint appellate counsel. A court may appoint
    counsel for a pro se civil litigant “under exceptional circumstances.” See Gibson v. Tolbert, 
    102 S.W.3d 710
    , 712 (Tex. 2003) (citing Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Mayfield, 
    923 S.W.2d 590
    , 594 (Tex. 1996)); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 24.016 (West 2004).
    Exceptional circumstances are “rare and unusual,” and Appellant’s motion presents no such
    circumstances. See 
    Gibson, 102 S.W.3d at 713
    (denying court-appointed counsel to an indigent
    inmate for his civil suit against prison personnel). Appellant’s motion for court-appointed
    appellate counsel is DENIED.
    If Appellee wishes to reply to Appellant’s response, Appellee must file its written reply
    on frivolousness only by April 30, 2014.
    After the court receives any timely reply, this court will determine whether Appellant’s
    claims are frivolous. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.003(b). If this court
    determines the appeal is frivolous, we will dismiss the appeal. See 
    id. § 14.003(a).
    Otherwise,
    the appeal will proceed.
    All other appellate deadlines remain SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.
    _________________________________
    Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 16th day of April, 2014.
    ___________________________________
    Keith E. Hottle
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-13-00725-CV

Filed Date: 4/16/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015