Murphy v. Conrad et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/16/2018. (c/m 03/16/2018 - jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

2018 MAR lb P

EDDIE MURPHY,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: GJH-16-246

.

V

COLIN OTTEY, M.D.
JENNIFER GILES, R.N.
Defendants.'
*

ic

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Eddie Murphy brings suit against Defendants Colin Ottey and Jennifer Giles,
medical staff at the North Branch Correctional Institution ("NBCI"), for violations of his rights
under the Eighth Amendment, alleging that Defendants failed to provide adequate medical
treatment on February 26, 2013 after Plairtiff was pepper-sprayed by correctional officers while
Plaintiff attempted to hang himself. ECF No. 1. Presently pending before the Court are
Defendants' Motion to Stay and Motion for Costs. ECF No. 27, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
or in tae Alterrative, Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 34, and Plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 30. No hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the
following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Stay is granted, and Plaintiff's Motion is denied.

'The Curt previcusly entered judgment in favor of the North Branch Correctional Institution Correctional Officer
defendants on March 30, 2017. ECF No. 30. Because the action remained pending as to the two named Defendants
herein, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs appeal for lack of jurisdiction on June 23, 2017. See ECF No. 40.

1

28

I.

DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Stay and Motion for Costs
On August 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, as well as other NBCI

correctional officers, alleging violations of his civil rights stemming from the February 26, 2013
incident. See Murphy v. Rounds, et al., Civil Action No. WDQ-13-2480 (D. Md. 2013). On
December 17, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment in that matter. WDQ-13-2480, ECF No. 20. Subsequent to the filing of
Defendants' dispositive motion, Plaintiff moved to withdraw his Complaint without prejudice,
explaining that he wanted to pursue the case after he retained counsel or was released from
incarceration. WDQ-13-2480, ECF No. 30.2 The Court granted the motion but cautioned Plaintiff
that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (d), if Plaintiff later commenced "an action based upon or
including the same claim against Defendants, the Court may make such order for the payment of
the costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings
in the action until he has complied with the order." WDQ-13-2480, ECF No. 31.
Plaintiff has refiled here virtually the identical Complaint he filed against Defendants in
his prior case; thus, consistent with the Court's Order, Defendants now seek their costs and a stay
of this matter. In their Motion for Costs and Motion to Stay, ECF No. 27, Defendants assert that
they incurred costs of $3,783.35 in the 2013 action. ECF No. 27 at 2 ¶5. Defendants contend that
this matter should be stayed until they are reimbursed for their costs related to the previous
matter. Defendants Motion to Stay is granted. Additionally, Plaintiff has 28 days from the date of
this Memorandum Opinion to show cause why Plaintiff should not be required to pay $3,783.35
for the costs Defendants previously incurred in Civil Action No. WDQ-13-2480. In the event
Plaintiff's current address suggests he has been released from prison, and he is no longer listed as an inmate on the
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' website. See http://www.dpscs.statemd.us/
inmate/search.do?searchType=name&firstnm=&lasmm=murphy (last viewed March 6, 2018).

2

2

Plaintiff does not timely respond to this Oder, this case may be dismissed with prejudice without
further notice from the Thurt.
B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel
"A pro se prisorer does not have a general right to counsel in a § 1983 action." Evani V.
Kuplinski,

F. App'x,

, 2017 WL 5513206, at *2 (4th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017). A federal

district court judge's power to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is discretionary, ani
an indigent claimant must present "exceptional circumstances." See Kuplinski, id. at *2; Milwri.
Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 966 (4th Cir. 1987). Exceptional circumstances exist where a "pro so
litigant has a colorable c_aim but lacks the capacity to present it." See Whisenant v. DAM, 72-9
F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated or. other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S.
296, 298 (1989) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize compulsory appointment of
counsel).
Since filing this motion, Murphy has been released from prison. The record does not
indicate whether he has 5ecured employment or attempted to retain an attorney. Upon close
consideration of the motions and previous filings by Murphy pro se, the Court finds that he has
demonstrated the ability :o articulate the legal and factual basis of his claims himself or secure
meaningful assistance in doing so. Further, the issues are not unduly complicated. Therefore,
there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrarit the appointment of an attorney to
represent Murphy at this time.

3

II. CONCLUSION
Defendants' Motion to Stay and Motion for Costs, ECF No. 27, shall be granted, in part,
and Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 30, shall be denied. A separate Order
follcws.

Dated: March ,2018
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

4