Branham v. Bryant et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 48 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by James M Branham. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 2/10/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James M. Branham,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sherriff Bruce M. Bryant and John Doe,
sued in their individual capacities,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:11-1246-JFA-SVH

ORDER

This action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. [Entry #48].
There is no right to appointed counsel in § 1983 cases. Cf. Hardwick v. Ault, 517
F.2d 295 (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 in his
motion 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 which 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.

February 10, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2