Addison v. Moore

Filing 29

ORDER denying 28 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 6/12/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kelvin Sharod Addison,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Corporal Steven Moore,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:15-571-SB-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action 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. [ECF No. 28].
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.
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.

June 12, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2