Hampton v. Peeples et al

Filing 29

ORDER overruling 26 Objection filed by Norman Hampton, III. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/07/2015. (thb)

IN THE T'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN DTSTRTCT OF GEORGTA
STATESBORO DIVISION
NORMAN HAMPTON,

III,

Plaintiff,

cv 614-104

v.
MATT PEEPLES, APRII, HODGES,
BRAD HOOKS, STANLEY WILLIAIV]S,
EYVETTE COOK, CARL FOUST, DEBRA
MCCLOUD, and NANCY GARRETT,
Defendants

.

ORDER

Presently
objection
appoint

to

before
the

the

Magistrate
(Doc.

counsef.

Hampton' s objection

is

On December 22,
in

the

required

appointment

of

Defendant

prison

various
fockdown
the

at

case

Smith

circumsLances,

11),

prejudice.

appoint

counsel

of

his

III,

second motion

the

following

the

Magistrate

review,
assist

subsequent

the

without

denial

For

which

that

State

the

Norman Hampton,

even before

to

officials

and

26.\

20L4,

and

Plaintiff

reasons,

s
to

Mr.

OVERRULED.

counsef

Peeples

is

Judge,s

friwolity

(Doc.

S 1983 claims

Court

arise

Magistrate

11,

in

r3. )

of

retafiatory
in

Given
of
Judge
Mr.

any

Hampton

litigating

out

resulted

absence

on June

him

Prison.

(Doc.

Mr.

,Judge engaged

an
acts

Mrthe

his

alleged
and

U.S.C.

assault

by

omissions

by

procedural

Mr

of

of

excepti-onal

Hamnf.in's

same grounds

to

posture

Hampton renewed his

2 0 1 5 o n the

42

the

H a m p E o n ,s t r a n s f e r

showing

deni ed

sought

motion

motion

argued

in

to
his

first

(Doc.

motion.

motion,

explaining

circumstances

the

Court

pursuant

22.)

that

ha [d]

72(al ,

erred

a

j uncture,

Mr.

matter

no

any

previous]

exceptional

in

not

[d]

manner

and

Hampton argues
faw

again

that

again

warrant

(Doc. 24.)

the

Rule

Now,

of

Civi l

Magistrate

concluding

circumstances

the
that

would

Federal

that

denied

shown

decision. "

S 636(b) (1) (A)

of

Judge

'tha

Hampton
in

Iics

28 U.S.C.

Procedure
as

Mr.

changed

revisiting
to

The Magistrate

.Tudge

that,

hrarrant

at

this

appointment

of

counse I .
A

district

matter

r ^ r h ee
r

order

is

it

clearly

S 636(b) (1) (A);
deferential

FED. R.

it,

with

the

F.3d

1325,

1350

marks omitted).
where

it

ejther

Jackson

(s.D.

Ga. .Tuly 25,

he

has

an

Cir.

v.

fai-ls
Deen,
2013)

HampLon argues,
"exceptional

City

of

No.

need"

in
for

his

entire

that

a
Sch.

judge

misapplies

appointed

Court

has

evidence

magistrate

first

hiqhfv

a

on the

citations

omittei..

l

U. S. C.

there

Thomasville

or

is

Supreme

i

when althouqh

CV 4I2-L39,

(citation
as

the

(internal

folfow

2S

error

"Clear

convlction

by the
to

1aw. ,.

court

firm

2005)

"A decision

law."

Mr.

v.

to

r'i

judge's

magistrate

erroneous,

and

hral-

Lhe

As

reviewing

the

Holton
(11th

72(a).

review.

definite

committed."

P.

that

contrary

'clearly

is

support

been

faw

of

shown

or

Crv.

to

left

been

erroneous

a finding

evidence

"reconsider

has

standard

explained,

is

/-.\r r r I

2013

wL

is

mistake

has

Dist.,

425

and quot.ation
Js contrary
the

to

applicable

3963989,

*3

at

,
and

second

counsel

motions.
because

that
(1)

he

cannot
the

Georgia

26 at
the

obtain

Department
(2)

2) i

DOC as

he

an

2013 assault
an

and

"facts

of

inmate,

he

obtain

about

cannot
at

expert

glve

an opinion

He further

expresses

5).
Cir.

1985),

as

substantiate
(Doc.

26

a
at

reasoning

the
of

reconsider

,Johnson,
district
substitut.e
the

judge

and
hrlt

prisoner'sl

abilities"
compuLer,

to

969 F.2d
court
counsel
of
that

telephone,

for

engage in

its

because

or

(1)

was

copy

Court

machine

to

the
of

for

alfowed

denial

and

was

court
because

of

the
tl-ha

Rayes v.

);

that

Lo

the

the

appoint

record.

that

prisoner's]

Ithe
use

Cir.

I.imil- ad

failing

to

the

appoincmenc

1992) (concludinq

from

not

(3d

district

harre

exceeded

(11th

follow

coungel

mLa l. \ /
,, e

in

at

counsel-.

157-5e

its

,'apparent

not

of

investigation,,

Cir.

ion

(id.

..does

for

rr

factual

was

se 1f - representat
he

reasons

DOC

ch.iropractic

,Judge,

to

as

of

1159

standard

discretion
it

a

23,

(3)

2-3);

773 F.2d

appointment

(8th

at

injuries

f47,

incorrect

other

7OO, 703-04
abused

the

(Doc.

,JuIy

the

appointmenL

F.3d

,'inCafCefation

that

his

and remanding

the

no

for

urges
6

request

offered

ability

in

he

to

subpoena
of

of

inmate

information.,

Mclver,

motion

files

documents,, of

(id.

Magj_strate

crace,

applied

n.rl- i rrr

demands

his

summary judgment

magistrate

rFmrcsf

v.

prisoner's

counsef

the

Instead,

Tabron

cannot

Wahf v.

by
of

refated

Lhe severity

that

cited

6-7.)

in

on

an

official

"personal

he

official
as

he complains

the
(4)

and

denial"

1993) (vacating
to

4);

the

('DOC")

those

which

obtain

(id.

of

"classifj-ed

specificalfy

employees
to

documenLs

Corrections"

cannot

incident

lDmate.

legal

a

forbidden

t)4)ewriter,
access

Lo

prison's

the

faw

state
to

faw

offer

(2)

center";

"adjustment

from

at

or

other

1981-)(per curiam) (concluding
nri

enrar'c

ra.n,a<t-

confined

to

position

a

knowledge

Haas,

The courL
the

law.

.fudge

constitutional
(11th

cir.

Cir.

I999t),
a

counsef

cert.

for

court
an

is

justified

the

facts

and

the

assistance

102s,

of

a

(11th

l-028 (llth

Cir.

to

it

(citation

by

exceptionaf

trained
cir.
1987)

are

so

(citing

and Wahl ,

i

cir.

r'\al.anlc.ri-

was

he

"in

no

and did

not

abrogaled

1993).

civil
562

F.

135

s.

is

Ct.

not
769,

App'x
1312,

170 F.3d

that

misapplied

case

1320

a
7'77

(11th

875

QOf4).

S 1915(e) (1),

appoint

has

broad
*ft

or

complex

"

Fowfer

Poole v.
?73 F.2d

at

discretion
is

circumstances,

practitioner.
l-990)

.ic

onitted).

novel

(?th

885

otherwise

or

28 U.S.C.

plaintiff,

issues

legal

nom.,

Id.

only

1096

1088,

pursuant

indigent

decision.

that

sub

named

Hamptonr s arguments,

a

Perrin,

failed

the

process"),

legal

Langford,

Bass v.

denied

may,

v.

by

shoul-d have granted

(7th Cir.

in

of

compf aint."

error

counsel

Wright

(citing

2014)

Afthough

of

right.

the

cfear

two

pain,

his

on Mr.

based

committed

Appointment

of

3].9, 32L-22

find,

cannot

Magistrate

the

990 F.2d

to

(3)

and

ha/'arrea

constant

germane

facts

by Farmer v.

F.2d

in

and

forbidden

550 F.2d

court

r'.rrrnqal

'ta workable

demonstrate

this

the district

wheelchair

fifes;

prison's

the

to
was

against

Freake,

v.

:nn^inl-a,.1

he

agency

evidence

investigate

to

making

f^r

assignment

believed

correctionaf

r and Macfin

trial)

his

of

mistakenly

obtaining

testimony

any

defendants

because

library

in

a privilege

such as where
as

to

v.

,Jones,

Lambert,
1174)

require
899

819 F.2d

is

whether

essential
facts

pro

the

merits

of

his

(quoting

Kifgo

First,
counsef,

v.

in

or

r^^rladf

l.rrr{-

Judge

F^'

that

to

deny

the

procedural
frivolity

of

This

Court

t'unchanged

the
-

could

the

misapplied

finds

no

Lhe

law

finding
the

detaifed

reasons

for

counsel-,

this

conslderat.ion
while
upheld

notwithstanding

incarcerated.
district

courts'

Indeed,

any

M a . r ir 5

L!dLc

any change

on

its
this

the

in

first
Court, s

unchanged
of

observation

different

that
the
the

decisions

Hampton

the
was

conclusion

arques
and

t.he opposite,

denia]

notes

Judge.s

firsL

fr4Y

completion

"exceptional"

Although

Court

his

fL rhv
r a

and

awaiting

Mr.

error.

its

to

"

are
in

-

appointed

of

motions

come to

extent

neverthefess

Judge

not

for

demonstrated

Magistrate

the

request

Based

2O1O)

1993)).

reconsideration

case

Where the

(11-th Cir.

f af i .)ns

counsef.

the

not need such

language
.i

Hampton's

circumstances.

to

circumstances

Mr.

process

review

correct.

of

of

will

457

second

CaSe

warrant

appointment

court.

193 (l-1th Cir.

identical
Of

the

455,

Hampton had not

woul-d

posture

App'x
r89,

nearly

to

presenting

in

she usually

Hampton's

addition

content

Second,

Mr.

Mr.

that

circumstances

of

Fr.,e

he or

983 F.2d

contains

concluded

review

Ricks,

help

position

her

405 F.

I,eq,

reviewing

which

decision

v.

needs

Iitigant

and issues are simple,
McDaniefs

about

se

Magistrate
of

Mr.

prisoners

Eleventh
to

refuse

did

Hampton
do

challenges

the
the

Judge

not
of

Circuit

that

Magistrate
Court
not

litigating

appointment

agaln
provide

request

receive

has

his

for

special
a

case

consistentfy
of

counsel_

42

in

F.

court

App'x

L027,

not

did
to

Fforida

Department

weather

and

F.

exceptional

and

lor

doctor

Sheriff's
the

district

prisoner's

court

correctionaf

after
v.

incj-dent

in

which

finding

appointment
of

nursing

Sims v.

App'x

of
at

455,

that
counsel

jail

Nguyen,

403

F.

di.strict

court's

lrarranted

appointment

against

prison

no

care

from
2010)

exceptional

v.

his

thal

to

in
force
Cnty.

(finding

by

denying

suit

against
for

their

either

before

bunk) ;

McDaniels

circumstances

indifference

no

2013)

(affirming

S 1983 action

cold

Wright,

;

Monroe

personnel

Cir.

prisoner's

district
warranted

against
his

or

director

HIV status)

4I4

(11th

Cir.

that

no

exceptional

circumstances

of

counsef

in

for

defiberate

;

2010) (affirming

App'x

finding

doct.ors

medical

to

excessive

S 1983

fell

(11th

deliberate

in

the

counsel

discretion

medical

prisoner
457

in

for

and

proper

provide

court's

counsel

of

(11-th Cir.

its

against

finding

for

Faul-kner

702

district

bedding)

court,s

;

Inst. ,

exposure

and

officer

abuse

employees

to

405 F.

jail

appoint

filed

appointment

696,

not

failure

an

Lee,

co

faciliCy

purported

App'x

did

motions

clothing

indifference)

523 F.

he

of

prisoner's

denied

inmates'

district

the

it

action

about

against

deliberate

Dep't,

class

warranted

S 1983 action

hrant

for

(finding

when

adequate

case

Warden, Hardee Corr.
20L5)

in

circumstances

prisoner's

this

Cir.

(affirming

777

at

v.

Corrections

without

to

discretion

its

of

rain

App'x

(11th

counsel

appoint

simj-l-ar

smith

1030

abuse

motions

562

actions

circumstances.

exceptional
s97

S 1983

U.S.C.

410,

prisoner's

s

indifference

to

LY63

aCtlon

his

serious

needs

medical

..rnst-it

ii.)nel

practice

of

justifying

S

1983

rrrrhl

i.

dcf

religion

f.\

jail

counsel"

are
not

a

the

E i n.l

motions
include
pieces
and

are

anafogous

appoint

evidence

evidence

this

Mr.

.ir.'rlmql-ances

rrlmini

county
ei-r-+

for

i-'a

various
case

essent.ial

the

and

facts

assistance

precedent,
Even if

as Mr.

the
the

of

and

court-

by

court

and

Macfin

counsef
citations
and

in
test

-.1

1-rrr

and
to

ability

of

Tabron,

Lhese

cases

reveafs

that

this

circuit

within

rel-ation

to

assessing

has

whether

has been met.
1-ha

the
lega1

DOc policies

Hampton's

facts

review

independent

any

cases on which

Hampton claims,

Court's

/l6m^nct-?rf

appropriate
of

vrithout

binding.

circumstances"

l \,

to

f f

"It]he

(finding

LL74

criminal

decided

Rayes,

"exceptional

chari

fol

judges,

court

his

because

above-cited

not

are

case

Tabron,

cited

the

persuasj-ve:

single

at

commissioners
of

ascertainabfe

unlike

and Macl-in

hardly

county

conditions

inmate's

circumstances

cw.cnf i6n^ l

of

r -u^u r r r y . \ /
s rrr1l

handling

of

) .

Hampton relies

Rayes,

and

773 F.2d

circuit

^ iL - L v ! r o r c y ,
^r rrr
q t

the

were

Moreover,
Mr.

Florida

in

doctrines

appointed

exiStence

F.2d

retafiation

for

at

899

exceptional

Wahl ,

show the

j ai],

and

present

counsef);

Fowler,

infringement

va1 i^j^n

against

county

unconst i tut ional

cancer);

alleged

not

of

cl- Ara

improprieties

1egal

did

action
erder

of

for

l-^ nv-^ri^^

ridhi

failcd

in

head

suit

appointment

nf'isoner

prostate

to

(finding

1095

1091,

related

arrr'l

instant
authority,
that

to

i l- rr

aF

My

-

objection
identify

may support

factually

u.mnton'
rrqU'!.

his

distinguish

S

which

specific
claims,
legaf

-

precedent
issues

in

adeouatefv
For
to

at

Hampton
case

this

hr^<A-11l-

for

Maqistrate

h r i- -i - .
.. h

to

be

to

understand

capable

of

the

fundamental

representing

himself

time.
the

Judge's

(Doc. 26.)
a

appears

and

reasons,

Magistrate

the

true

his

these

counsel.
l- ^

Mr.

t-- .h ^
-e

virlually

Mr.

O V E R R U L E SM r .

denial

of

Hampton's

- ^i
rd-s s . L s -L crtnl -l 6 e
u

all

Judge committed

ORDER ENTERED at

Court

^
UF!

fitigants

his

second

claims
crt l l

who

motion

obiection
to

would no doubt

^
,
df L Lf ( J ? Ihl ^e! y ,
l

l-,,F

,JUL

proceed

no error.

Augusta,

Hampton's

appoint

be easier

Fr-^

pro

--,

Lne

fS

Same

se.

The

,,1

Georgia,

tnis

'j{6ay

or Jury,

20t5.

HO
UNI

DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA