Souffrant v. Iseman

Filing 61

ORDER denying Plaintiff's: (1) Motions Relating to Discovery 45 52 53 ; (2) Motion for an Extension 49 ; (3) Motion for a Bench Trial 50 ; and (4) Motion to Appoint Counsel 51 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 7/24/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas Souffrant,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C.J. Iseman, Deputy Sheriff of
Clarendon County; and Clarendon
County Sheriff’s Department,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 0:18-388-MGL-SVH

ORDER

Thomas Souffrant (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. All pretrial proceedings in this case
were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(f) (D.S.C.). This matter comes before
the court on the following motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) Motions Relating to
Discovery [ECF Nos. 45, 52, 53]; (2) Motion for an Extension [ECF No. 49]; (3)
Motion for a Bench Trial [ECF No. 50]; and Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF
No. 51].
I.

Motions Relating to Discovery
Plaintiff filed three separate motions requesting various forms of

discovery. [ECF Nos. 45, 52, 53]. Plaintiff has previously been advised that
discovery requests need not be filed with the court, but should be served on

Defendants. [ECF No. 26]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions are denied, as they
prematurely seek to compel discovery responses from Defendants before the
requests were served on Defendants. However, in this limited instance only,
the court construes discovery requests as served on Defendants through
CM/ECF on July 24, 2018, and they are directed to respond within the time
limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is hereby
advised that future discovery requests will be returned to him by mail if he
does not indicate that he first served the requests by mail on Defendants’
counsel and awaited their responses before seeking court intervention.
II.

Motion for an Extension
Plaintiff requests an extension of time, believing that the deadline for

discovery was July 11, 2018. [ECF No. 49]. Although the original deadline for
discovery was June 11, 2018 [ECF No. 23], the undersigned issued an
amended scheduling order on May 24, 2018 [ECF No. 41]. The deadline for
discovery is now October 10, 2018. Id. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension
[ECF No. 49] is therefore denied as moot.
III.

Motion for a Bench Trial
Plaintiff has filed a “Demand for a Judge Trial.” [ECF No. 50].

Defendants oppose the motion. [ECF No. 59]. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as
premature and because Defendants are entitled to a jury trial. See U.S.
CONST. am VII.
2

IV.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff has filed a motion for the court to appoint him counsel. [ECF

No. 51]. There is no right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
cases. Cf. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1975). While the
court is granted the power to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for an
indigent in a civil action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Smith v. Blackledge, 451
F.2d 1201 (4th Cir. 1971), such appointment “should be allowed only in
exceptional cases.”

Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975).

Plaintiff has not shown that any exceptional circumstances exist in this case.
After a review of the file, this court has determined that there are no
exceptional or unusual circumstances presented that would justify the
appointment of counsel, nor would Plaintiff be denied due process if an
attorney were not appointed. Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir.
1984). In most civil rights cases, the issues are not complex, and whenever
such a case brought by an uncounseled litigant goes to trial, the court
outlines proper procedure so the uncounseled litigant will not be deprived of a
fair opportunity to present his or her case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for
a discretionary appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 24, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
3