Ventura v. United States of America et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 7/10/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
German De Jesus Ventura,
Plaintiff,
vs.
United States of America, R.J.
Stallings, Mrs. Rosario, Dr. Fonte,
Mr. Finnerty, and Warden Bonita
S. Mosely,
Defendants.

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

1:17-1199-PMD-SVH

ORDER

German De Jesus Ventura (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this action seeking compensatory damages pursuant to Bivens

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971),1 and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (“FTCA”). This
matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
[ECF No. 39].
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

1

Bivens established that victims of a constitutional violation perpetuated by

a federal actor may sue the offender for damages in federal court despite the
absence of explicit statutory authorization for such suits.

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 has limited legal knowledge and that his detention in state custody
will limit his ability to litigate 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). 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.

July 10, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2