Anderson v. Eagleton et al

Filing 107

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL: Attorney Lindsay Anne Joyner for Sherald Anderson added. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/15/2018. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Sherald Anderson, #250152

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Warden Willie L. Eagleton (Official
)
Capacity), Corporal V. Lovin (Vernon),
)
Officer Doe Lucas, In Their Individual
)
Capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-02462-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Sherald Anderson (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner at Evans Correctional Institution in
the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations against
Defendants Warden Willie L. Eagleton, Officer Corporal V. Lovin (Vernon) (“Officer Lovin”),
and Officer Doe Lucas (“Officer Lucas”) ( collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) On
September 20, 2017, the court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to claims
asserted against Officer Lovin and Officer Lucas. (ECF No. 87.) This matter is now before the
court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
(ECF No. 92.)
Section 1915(e)(1) provides that “the court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel.” Id. However, “there is no absolute right to appointment of
counsel [absent]. . .‘exceptional circumstances.’’’ Hall v. Holsmith, 340 F. App’x 944, 946 (4th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987)); see also Whisenant v.
Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (1984) (“The power to appoint is a discretionary one, but it is an abuse
of discretion to decline to appoint counsel where the case of an indigent plaintiff presents

exceptional circumstances.”), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S.
Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). Exceptional circumstances exist where “it is apparent to the
district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present it.” Id.
at 163.
At this stage of the instant action, it has become clear that Plaintiff has a potentially
meritorious claim which he is ill-equipped to litigate in a trial setting. Therefore, the court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 92) and APPOINTS Attorney Lindsay Anne Joyner
(“Attorney Joyner”) of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA in Columbia, South Carolina as pro bono
counsel to assist Plaintiff in this case and to represent him at trial. Attorney Joyner is ordered to
contact Plaintiff, as soon as possible, and the Clerk shall enter a scheduling order to serve the
purposes of mediation and the trial of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 15, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

2