Peppers v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services
5:25-cv-00549
| W.D. Okla. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Jack Walter Peppers, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed suit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and others regarding custody and visitation with his children.
- Peppers filed multiple motions seeking emergency and procedural relief, including a temporary restraining order (TRO), appointment of counsel, permission for electronic case filing, and leave to file supplemental exhibits.
- At the time of the opinion, defendants had not yet been served.
- The case is in early stages, with the merits of Peppers' underlying claims not yet assessed by the court.
- The court reviewed and resolved all pending motions, including those for immediate/emergency relief, procedural accommodations, and document submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) | Peppers sought a TRO barring enforcement of a safety plan and interference with his custody/visitation rights. | Not submitted (unserved) | Denied: Plaintiff failed to meet Rule 65(b) notice requirements. |
| Appointment of Counsel | Peppers requested appointed counsel due to complex issues. | Not submitted | Denied: No right to counsel in civil cases; Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient legal ability. |
| Electronic Case Filing | Peppers sought permission to file documents electronically. | Not submitted | Denied: Local rules and ECF Manual prohibit pro se electronic filing absent good cause. |
| Supplemental Exhibits | Peppers wanted to file or send additional exhibits related to his complaint/TRO. | Not submitted | Denied: Plaintiff may conventionally file referenced exhibits; no leave required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, discretionary appointment)
- Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1995) (factors considered for appointment of counsel)
- Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1991) (articulating factors for appointment of counsel)
- Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2004) (judicial discretion in denying appointment of counsel where pro se filings are competent)