Jamison v. Alvin S Glenn Detention Center et al

Filing 36

ORDER directing Clerk not to authorize service and advising plaintiff to notify Clerk in writing of any change of address. Motions denied: 33 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Jamil Aba Mecha Jamison. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/13/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jamil Aba Mecha Jamison,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center,
Captain Michael F. Higgins, Unknown
Jane Doe Officers, Unknown John Doe
Officers, and Unknown Director,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:12-952-JMC-SVH

ORDER

This is a civil action filed by a state prisoner. Therefore, in the event that a
limitations issue arises, Plaintiff shall have the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner’s pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison
authorities for forwarding to District Court). Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United
States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff files a motion to appoint counsel in this action. [Entry #33]. There is no
right to appointed counsel in a case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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’s motion fails to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist in this case.
Rather, Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, that imprisonment limits his
ability to properly investigate, research and litigate this case, and that “counsel would
better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross examine witnesses.” [Entry #33 at 1].
These are typical complaints from prisoners proceeding pro se, and after a review
of the motion, the 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), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court,
490 U.S. 296 (1989). The issues in most civil rights cases are not complex, and whenever
such a case brought by an uncounseled litigant goes to trial, the court outlines the proper

procedure so the uncounseled litigant will not be deprived of a fair opportunity to present
his or her case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a discretionary appointment of
counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1) is denied.
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
This case is subject to summary dismissal based on an initial screening conducted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Clerk of Court shall not
issue the summons or forward this matter to the United States Marshal for service of
process at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 13, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff’s attention is directed to the important warning on the next page.

2

IMPORTANT INFORMATION....PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
WARNING TO PRO SE PARTY OR NONPARTY FILERS
ALL DOCUMENTS THAT YOU FILE WITH THE COURT WILL BE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET THROUGH PACER (PUBLIC
ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS) AND THE COURT’S
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING SYSTEM. CERTAIN PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN OR SHOULD BE REMOVED
FROM ALL DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS TO
THE COURT FOR FILING.
Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for privacy protection of
electronic or paper filings made with the court. Rule 5.2 applies to ALL documents
submitted for filing, including pleadings, exhibits to pleadings, discovery responses, and
any other document submitted by any party or nonparty for filing. Unless otherwise
ordered by the court, a party or nonparty filer should not put certain types of an
individual’s personal identifying information in documents submitted for filing to any
United States District Court. If it is necessary to file a document that already contains
personal identifying information, the personal identifying information should be
“blacked out” or redacted prior to submitting the document to the Clerk of Court for
filing. A person filing any document containing their own personal identifying
information waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) by filing the information without
redaction and not under seal.
1. Personal information protected by Rule 5.2(a):
(a) Social Security and Taxpayer identification numbers. If an individual’s social
security number or a taxpayer identification number must be included in a document, the
filer may include only the last four digits of that number.
(b) Names of Minor Children. If the involvement of a minor child must be mentioned,
the filer may include only the initials of that child.
(c) Dates of Birth. If an individual’s date of birth must be included in a document, the
filer may include only the year of birth.
(d) Financial Account Numbers. If financial account numbers are relevant, the filer
may include only the last four digits of these numbers.
2. Protection of other sensitive personal information – such as driver’s license numbers
and alien registration numbers – may be sought under Rule 5.2(d)(filings made under
seal) and (e) (protective orders).

3