Fetner v. Magil et al
Filing
22
ORDER denying 20 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by William Bryan Fetner. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 9/28/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
William Bryan Fetner, #10224680,
Plaintiff,
vs.
John Magil, Director, S.C. Department
of Mental Health; and Holly Scutturo,
Director, S.V.P. Program, Department
of Mental Health,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 1:15-2265-DCN-SVH
ORDER
William Bryan Fetner (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
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. 20].
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 cannot afford counsel and has limited knowledge of the
law. [ECF No. 20]. Although Plaintiff states that he does not have access to a law library,
Defendants indicate that Plaintiff has access to legal research through a Westlaw
subscription. [ECF Nos. 21, 21-2].
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). The court notes that Plaintiff has competently
represented himself thus far. 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 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.
September 28, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?