Greene v. Perry Correctional Institution

Filing 23

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 22 motion for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 7/26/2018. (bgoo) Modified on 7/27/2018 to correct filing date. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Wilton Q. Greene, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cecil Hawkins; M. Toth; and J.
Glenn,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:18-1731-BHH-SVH

ORDER

Wilton Q. Greene, III (“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. 22].
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 unable to afford counsel and that his detention 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 26, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2