James v. Lancaster County Detention Center et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying as moot 49 Motion to Compel; denying 57 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 11/14/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jesse M. James,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sheriff Barry Faile; and Mrs. Deborah
Horne,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:13-211-JFA-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff Jesse M. James, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges Sheriff Barry Faile and Deborah Horne
(“Defendants”) violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Lancaster
County Detention Center (“LCDC”).

This matter comes before the court on (1)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Entry #49]; and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel
[Entry #57]. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.).
I.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks responses to discovery requests served on

July 4, 2013. Defendants’ response indicates that on November 1, 2013, they served
responses to the July 4, 2013 discovery requests, and Defendants attached a copy of the
responses. [Entry #51-2]. Plaintiff did not file a reply indicating that he believed the

responses were deficient. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks
responses to the July 4, 2013 discovery, his motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s motion also lists additional interrogatories to which he seeks responses,
but he does not indicate that he has previously served these discovery requests. Plaintiff’s
motion must be denied, as Defendants argue [Entry #51], and Plaintiff does not dispute,
that Plaintiff has not served such discovery requests.
The undersigned notes that, pursuant to the third amended scheduling order, all
discovery requests were to be served in time for the responses thereto to be served by
December 4, 2013. [Entry #54]. The undersigned has granted three motions by Plaintiff
requesting extensions of time to complete discovery totaling five months. Plaintiff has
had ample time to conduct discovery and the undersigned does not anticipate granting
further extensions.
II.

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel
Plaintiff moves for the court to appoint him counsel. There is no right to appointed

counsel in § 1983 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 in his motion has not shown that any
exceptional circumstances exist in this case. Rather, he simply states that he is an
indigent pro se prisoner with limited legal knowledge and access to legal resources.
[Entry #57].
2

These are typical complaints by prisoners seeking to pursue civil cases pro se in
federal court, and 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.

November 14, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3