Morrow v. Straughn et al
ORDER granting in part, 21 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; Defendants must comply with the instructions in this Order on or before 1/21/2014; Denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel; and granting 26 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time. The discovery deadline is extended until 2/06/2014 and the filing of dispositive motions until 3/6/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/08/2014. (kcs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
WILLIAM STRAUGHN, Warden,
Maximum Security Unit, ADC, et al.
Plaintiff, Berry Morrow, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that, while
he has been in punitive segregation at the Tucker Maximum Security Unit (“MSU”),
Defendants have violated his constitutional right to access the courts by: (1) limiting
his access to the prison library; and (2) restricting his possession of legal publications
and materials in his cell.1 Plaintiff has recently filed three non-dispostive Motions,
which the Court will address separately.
I. Motion to Compel
Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking the Court to compel Defendants to further
respond to Request for Production 1 seeking: “An Exhaustive Index of Dept. Of
Correction (ADC) Policy and procedures including Administrative Regulations,
According to Plaintiff, he is “virtually permanently assigned to punitive segregation.” Doc.
2 at 5. He, however, has not explained when he began that confinement or when it is expected to
Directives, Memoranda, Post Rules, SOP’s, and other written instructions or
guidelines.” Doc. 25, Ex. A. Defendants objected to that discovery request as being
over broad and seeking irrelevant information. The Court agrees that the discovery
request, as written, is overly broad and should be limited to ADC policies, procedures,
regulations, and other documents governing: (1) the access rights of MSU prisoners
in punitive segregation to the prison library; and (2) the legal materials an MSU
prisoner is allowed to possess while in punitive segregation. Thus, Defendants must,
within fourteen days of the entry of this Order, provide Plaintiff with the abovedescribed documents, but only to the extent that they have not already been produced
If Defendants object to providing Plaintiff with any of those documents, they
must file, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order, a sealed Supplemental
Response containing a copy of any such documents and an explanation of why they
should not be required to provide those documents to Plaintiff. Thus, the Motion to
Compel is granted, as specified herein.
II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Doc. 24. A pro se
For instance, Plaintiff already has a copy of ADC Administrative Directive 12-24 on
Punitive Segregation/Restrictions. Doc. 2, Ex. A. Additionally, Defendants have provided him with
a copy of ADC Administrative Directive 09-51 on Library Services. Doc. 25.
litigant does not have a statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in
a civil case. Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006); Stevens
v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). However, the Court may, in its
discretion, appoint counsel for a pro se prisoner if it is convinced that he has stated a
non-frivolous claim and that “the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well
as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Johnson v. Williams, 788
F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must weigh
and consider the following factors: (1) the factual and legal complexity of the case;
(2) the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts; (3) the presence or absence of
conflicting testimony; and (4) the plaintiff's ability to present his claims. Phillips, 437
F.3d at 794.
Plaintiff’s claims are not legally or factually complex. Furthermore, it appears
from the record that he is capable of presenting his claims without the benefit of
appointed counsel. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the pertinent
factors do not weigh in favor of appointment of counsel at this time.
III. Motion for an Extension of Time
Plaintiff has filed a Motion seeking an extension of the December 10, 2013
discovery deadline. Doc. 26. The Court finds good cause for granting that request.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 21) is GRANTED IN PART.
Defendants must comply with the instructions in this Order on or before
January 21, 2014.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The
discovery deadline is extended until February 6, 2014, and the dispositive motion
deadline is extended until March 6, 2014.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2014.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?