Scott Thompson v. Susan Molinari
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., March 16, 2011; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., February 2, 2011
Scott Thompson v. Susan Molinari, No. CA-0010-0805 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. July 28, 2010).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ardoin v. Bourgeois 916 So. 2d 329
Opinion text
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
10-805
SCOTT THOMPSON
VERSUS
SUSAN MOLINARI
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 72107
HONORABLE EDWARD M. LEONARD, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and David E.
Chatelain,* Judges.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
REQUEST FOR STAY DENIED.
RICHARD DAMIAN MERE
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3301
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(337) 269-5555
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Susan Molinari
SCOTT THOMPSON
Federal Correctional Complex, USP-1
Post Office Box 1033
Coleman, Florida 33521-1033
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
In Proper Person
____________________
*Judge David E. Chatelain participated in this decision by appointment of the
Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.
GREMILLION, Judge.
This appeal was filed by a pro se pauper applicant who is currently
incarcerated in a federal prison in Florida. On July 21, 2010, this court
received the Appellant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The Appellant
requests this court appoint him an attorney to assist him in preparing his civil
appeal brief. The Appellant claims that because he has recently been
transferred to federal custody and is now incarcerated in Florida, he has no
access to the Louisiana law library materials necessary to prepare his brief.
In the alternative, the Appellant requests this court stay his appeal proceedings
in order that he may attempt to obtain these materials. For the reasons given
below, we deny the Appellant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
request for stay.
This case arises out of the Plaintiff’s filing of a summary proceeding
seeking to nullify a donation. The trial court signed a judgment on February
8, 2008, which dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Notice of the
signing of judgment was sent on March 18, 2008. The Plaintiff then filed a
request for an appeal from this judgment on April 28, 2008. The trial court
signed an order of appeal, and the record in this case was lodged in this court.
Upon the lodging of the record, this court issued a notice of lodging to the
Appellant notifying him that his appellate brief is due on August 2, 2010.
We find that the Appellant has cited no authority for the appointment
of an appeal attorney, nor has the Appellant shown how he is an exception to
the general rule that parties in civil cases are not entitled to appointed counsel
to represent them. In Ardoin v. Bourgeois, 04-1663 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05),
916 So.2d 329, this court found that an incarcerated defendant was not entitled
1
to appointed counsel in civil trial proceedings. This court did acknowledge
that constitutional due process may require the appointment of counsel to
indigents in civil matters “when fundamental constitutional rights are
involved.” Id. at 333. However, we find that the Appellant’s
underlying suit seeking to nullify a donation does not satisfy this requirement.
Accordingly, we hereby deny the Appellant’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel.
In addition, we also deny Appellant’s request for stay of his appeal, but
will consider this request as a timely filed motion for extension of time to file
brief pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–12.8. For good
cause shown, we hereby order that the Appellant file his appellate brief on or
before August 12, 2010.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
STAY OF APPEAL DENIED.
This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rules 2-16.2 and 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.
2