Drummond v. Spartanburg County Jail et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 53 Motion to Protect and/or Seal Whistle Blower; 59 Motion for Mediation, Motion to File Documents under Seal; 65 Motion to Appoint Counsel and granting 54 , 81 Motions 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.
Sargent Blackwell, kitchen; Major Neal
Urch, Director; Asley McCann, Legal;
Det. Brock; Det. Reyes; Dr. McDonald,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 5:15-cv-04713-MGL-KDW

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the following Motions filed by Plaintiff: Motion
to Protect/Seal his Whistle Blower, ECF No. 53; Motions for Issuance of a Subpoena, ECF Nos.
54 and 81; Motion for Mediation, ECF No. 59; and Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 65.
1.

Motion to Protect/Seal his Whistle Blower, ECF No. 53

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. 53. 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. ECF No. 59.
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
conduct inquiries in order to prepare its case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 53, is

denied, as is the portion of Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 59, where he requests documents be
filed under seal so that Plaintiff may protect the identity of his whistleblower.
2.

Motions for Issuance of a Subpoena, ECF Nos. 54 and 81

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Subpoena requesting his full medical
report from North Hill Medical. ECF No. 54. Plaintiff filed another Motion for a Subpoena on
June 22, 2016 requesting his case file information from Robert Hall. ECF No. 81. Plaintiff’s
Motions for Subpoena are granted, and the clerk is instructed to issue two subpoenas on
Plaintiff’s behalf. Within 5 days of receiving the subpoenas, Plaintiff is instructed to serve the
two parties to the subpoenas 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.
3.

Motion for Mediation, ECF No. 59

On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting the court order that a neutral third
party facilitate fair settlement discussions. ECF No. 59. 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.
4.

Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 65.

2

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel on June 3, 2016. ECF No. 65. 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)). 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

3