Drummond v. Spartanburg County et al

Filing 147

ORDER denying 88 Motion to Strike; 93 Motion for Full Medical Report, Full Discovery, and Full Interrogatories; 126 Motion for Copy of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), Motion to Produce; 101 Motion for S anctions; 108 Motion for Conspiracy, Special Verdict, and Liability of Multiple Defendants; 119 Motion to Amend due to Extraordinary Circumstances of the Powerful Drug "Seroquel"; 109 Motion to Protect and/or Seal Whistle Blower; 118 Motion for Mediation, Motion to File Documents under Seal; 129 Motion to Appoint Counsel; and granting 112 Motion for issuance of Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 7/1/2016. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Edward Drummond,
Plaintiff,
v.
Major Neal Urch, Director; County
Attorney Virginia DuPont, “Ginny”;
Asley McCann, Legal; Sgt Thomas;
Nurse White; and Dr. McDonalds,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 5:15-cv-04285-MGL-KDW

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on several Motions filed by Plaintiff. The undersigned
will address these motions in turn.
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 88
On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike a submission concerning Defendant
McCann’s Report to Sheriff and Neal Urch. ECF No. 88. Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. All parties
are permitted to submit evidence in support of their motions and other arguments to the court,
and Plaintiff has failed to state a valid/legal reason for the court to not consider Defendants’
submission. Furthermore, credibility determinations are left for the jury’s consideration.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for full medical report, full discovery, and full interrogatories, ECF
No. 93, Plaintiff’s Motion for issuance of Subpoena, ECF No. 112, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Copy of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 126
On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for full medical report, full discovery, and full
interrogatories, ECF No. 93. Plaintiff’s Motion is denied, and the court directs Plaintiff’s
attention to a previous order in this case dealing with a nearly identical motion. See ECF No.
110, Section “B. Motion for Discovery.”

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Subpoena requesting his full medical
report from North Hill Medical. ECF No. 112. Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena is granted, and
the clerk is instructed to issue the subpoena on Plaintiff’s behalf. Within 5 days of receiving the
subpoena, Plaintiff is instructed to serve the party to the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena
and is also instructed to serve Defendants with a copy of the subpoena in accordance with Rule
45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Copy of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. ECF No. 126. Plaintiff’s Motion is denied, and the court directs Plaintiff’s attention
to a previous order in this case dealing with a nearly identical motion. See ECF No. 57, Section
on “Motion for Civil Law Book.”
The Court has taken much time to handle all of Plaintiff’s Motions in due course, and
Plaintiff is instructed to review the previous orders of this Court rather than file identical
Motions on issues the Court has already considered.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 101
On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Penalties of Perjury” and requests that the
Court order sanctions or hold the par[ties] in contempt of court!” ECF No. 101. Plaintiff’s
Motion is denied. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the imposition of sanctions when
a party disobeys a court order. See e.g., Rule 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A), 37(b)(2)(C). However, in this
instance, the court is not faced with an allegation or evidence that any party has failed to comply
with an order of the court. Plaintiff has requested a jury trial, and credibility determinations are
for the jury to determine.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Conspiracy and § 15-78-100, special verdict, liability of multiple
defendants (specifying propor[tionate] liability), ECF No. 108, and Plaintiff’s Motion to
2

Amend due to extraordinary circumstances of the powerful drug “seroquel,” ECF No.
119
On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion making several requests of the Court. ECF No.
108. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege a cause of action for conspiracy, that part of
the Motion is denied as the deadline for filing an amendment to his Complaint ended on March
23, 2016. See ECF No. 45. The portion of Plaintiff’s Motion requesting a special verdict and
specifying the proportionate liability for each Defendant is denied without prejudice. Should
Plaintiff’s civil action proceed to trial, the court will reconsider Plaintiff’s requests at that time.
On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion alleging that a Defendant and co-conspirators
engaged in a conspiracy. ECF No. 119. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs. See id. Plaintiff’s request to raise additional causes of action and
allege additional facts against Defendants is denied. As indicated in the above paragraph, the
deadline to file amendments to his Complaint ended on March 23, 2016.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, ECF Nos. 109, 118
On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed what he captioned as a “Motion to protect[t] and or seal
my (whistle Blower) § 8-27-10(5).” ECF No. 109. There Plaintiff alleges that he knows an
officer who “will tell the court the truth about the (BMU unit), [and] the 4 horsemen a (group of
officer[s]).” Id. However, Plaintiff requests the court’s help in protecting the officer and the
officer’s job. Id. Additionally, in another Motion Plaintiff makes a similar request. See ECF No.
118. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is denied. Though the court has the authority to file certain
documents containing sensitive information under seal, this only protects the documents from
public viewing. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
opposing side has the authority to view documents presented, cross-examine witnesses, and
3

conduct inquiries in order to prepare its case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF No. 109 and
the portion of Plaintiff’s Motion ECF No. 118 pertaining to protection for his “whistleblower,”
are denied.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Mediation, ECF No. 118
On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting the court order that a neutral third
party facilitate fair settlement discussions. ECF No. 118. Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without
prejudice. At this stage in the litigation process, the court has not instructed that the parties
conduct mediation. Furthermore, should the court instruct the parties to engage in mediation, that
instruction would occur after the court has issued a Report and Recommendation on any
dispositive motions filed and after the District Court has considered the undersigned’s
forthcoming recommendations. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Mediation is denied as
premature.
7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel on June 3, 2016. ECF No. 129.
Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. There is no right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 case. Cf.
Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1975). Although the court has 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). The existence of exceptional circumstances “will
turn on the quality of two basic factors - the type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of
the individuals bringing it.” Brock v. City of Richmond, 983 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir. 1993)
(unpublished table decision) (quoting Whisenant v. Yaum, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984)).
4

The undersigned finds this case is not an exceptional circumstance warranting appointment of
counsel and Plaintiff has competently represented himself in this case and filed numerous
motions on his own behalf.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 1, 2016
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

5