Zorrer v. Spartanburg County Detention Center et al
ORDER denying 45 MOTION to Produce; denying 46 MOTION to Appoint Counsel; and granting 44 MOTION for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's response to Defendants' 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment is now due by July 10, 2017. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on June 8, 2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas R. Zorrer,
Spartanburg County Detention Center;
Sheriff Chuck Wright; Major Neil Urch;
Ms. Ashley McCann; Captain Garcia;
Deputy Jacob Brock; Deputy Greene;
Deputy Preltlove; Deputy Nichols;
Deputy Britt; Deputy Thomas; Deputy
Ballew; Deputy Cooper; Deputy Rigsby;
Deputy Wright; Deputy McCreary;
Deputy Benstead; Ms. K. White; Nurse
D. Simmons; Nurse Sonya; Deputy
Rollins; and Victoria Carswell,
C/A No.: 1:16-3085-PMD-SVH
Thomas R. Zorrer (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
complaint against Defendants alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter
is before the court on the following motions by Plaintiff: (1) motion for an extension of
time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 44]; (2) motion
for discovery [ECF No. 45]; and (3) motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 46].
Motion for extension to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motion
Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is due June 8,
2017. Plaintiff has requested an unspecified extension of time to respond. The court
grants Plaintiff a 30-day extension. Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is now due by July 10, 2017.
Motion for discovery
Plaintiff’s motion for discovery includes requests for production to Defendants.
[ECF No. 45]. There is no indication that Plaintiff previously served the requests for
production on Defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is denied, as the deadline for
completion of discovery expired March 6, 2017, three months prior to Plaintiff’s motion.
Motion for appointment of counsel.
There is no right to appointed counsel in cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
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 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 8, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?