Tyler v. Darlington Detention Center et al
Filing
40
OPINION AND ORDER appointing counsel. Attorneys Michael Cashman and Keith Munson are hereby appointed as pro bono counsel to assist Plaintiff in this case and represent him at the trial of this case. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 9/18/13. (alew, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Larry James Tyler,
) Civil Action No.: 9:12-546-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Mitch Stanley and Captain Coe,
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________ )
Plaintiff, Larry James Tyler, an inmate in the South Carolina Department of Corrections,
proceeding pro se brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging multiple causes of action
regarding the conditions of his confinement while housed at the Darlington Detention Center. (ECF
No. 1-1). Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. (ECF No. 17). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Bristow Marchant
for pretrial handing.
On August 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant advised the parties, in an order
dated August 21, 2012, that the discovery deadlines in this case had expired and that the parties had
twenty (20) days from the entry date of the Courts order to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 23).
On October 18, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants’ motion was denied as untimely. (ECF No. 28). The
Magistrate Judge, in a Text Order dated October 23, 2012, extended the scheduling deadline for
filing Summary Judgment motions for fifteen (15) days from the entry date of the Order. Id. The
Magistrate Judge advised the parties that in the event neither parties filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, the matter would be scheduled for trial. On March 15, 2013, this Court issued a Text
Order (ECF No. 33) advising the parties that the discovery deadlines had passed in this case and that
the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment was extended for fifteen (15) days from the
entry date of its Order. The parties were advised that in the event neither party filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, the matter would be scheduled for trial. Neither party filed a motion for
summary judgment.
Generally, there is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought pursuant to § 1983.
Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1975). However, the Court has the power to exercise
discretion in appointing counsel for an indigent in a civil action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Smith v.
Blackledge, 451 F.2d 12-1 (4th Cir. 1971). Thus, the Court hereby appoints Michael Cashman and
Keith Munson of the Womble Carlyle Law Firm in Greenville, South Carolina, as pro bono counsel
to assist Plaintiff in this case and represent him at the trial of this case. Mr. Michael Cashman and
Mr. Keith Munson are experienced and knowledgeable in these matters. Attorney Cashman and
Attorney Munson’s duties are limited to consulting with Plaintiff and his witnesses in an effort to
prepare for trial, subpoenaing the necessary witnesses and documents to have them available at trial,
and participating in the trial/settlement negotiations. Attorney Cashman and Attorney Munson are
ordered to contact their client, who is currently incarcerated at the Evans Correctional Institution in
Bennettsville, South Carolina, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, as soon as possible.
The Clerk of Court’s Office is directed to produce any and all documents on file with their office to
Attorney Cashman and Attorney Munson. Counsel for the Defendants and appointed counsel for
Plaintiff are instructed to confer regarding the submission of a joint consent scheduling order to the
court. In conferring about the joint consent scheduling order, the parties should keep in mind that
the deadline for dispositive motions has expired. The parties are directed to participate in mediation
pursuant to Local Civil Rules 16.04-16.12 before a mediator of their choosing or a Magistrate Judge
2
appointed by the Court and should further discuss the timing of mediation which should be indicated
in the scheduling order submitted to this Court. This case is subject to being set for jury selection
and/or trial on or after January 1, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
September 18, 2013
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?