Ainsworth v. Droz et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Continue; denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 27 Motion to Stay Discovery. Defendants will file their Motion for Summary Judgment based on Qualified Immunity by 10/3/16. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/26/16. (SLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAY ALAN AINSWORTH,

4:16-CV-04042-KES

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE AND DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

vs.
B. DROZ, A. WILLIAMS,
Defendants.

Plaintiff, Jay Alan Ainsworth, is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State
Prison in Springfield, South Dakota. Ainsworth filed an amended pro se civil
rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Docket 9. This court screened his
amended complaint and directed service. Docket 10. Now, Ainsworth moves
the court for a continuance and to appoint counsel. Docket 24; Docket 25.
Defendants move to stay the discovery. Docket 27.
Defendants move to stay discovery. Docket 27. They request that
discovery be stayed until the court determines whether they are entitled to
qualified immunity. Id. “[Q]ualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather
than a mere defense to liability . . . .’ ” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231
(2009) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). “[T]he ‘driving
force’ behind creation of the qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to
ensure that ‘insubstantial claims' against government officials [will] be

resolved prior to discovery.’ ” Id. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640,
n.2, (1987). Therefore, defendants’ motion to stay discovery is granted.
Ainsworth moves the court for a continuance. Docket 24. He seeks time
to file interrogatories and perform other discovery, and he states that he has
not already conducted discovery because he was in the Segregated Housing
Unit. Id. Because the court grants defendants’ motion to stay discovery, this
motion is moot. If it is determined that defendants are not entitled to qualified
immunity, the court will enter a new scheduling order setting new deadlines at
that time.
Ainsworth moves the court to appoint him counsel. Docket 25. “A pro se
litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a
civil case.” Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). In
determining whether to appoint counsel to a pro se litigant’s civil case, the
district court considers the complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent
litigant to investigate the facts, and the indigent's ability to present his claim.
Id. The facts of Ainsworth’s claims are not complex, and he appears able to
adequately present his claims at this time. Therefore, his motion to appoint
counsel is denied. The court is aware that this situation may change as
litigation progresses and will “continue to be alert to the possibility that,
because of procedural complexities or other reasons, later developments in the
case may show either that counsel should be appointed, or that strict
procedural requirements should, in fairness, be relaxed to some degree.”
Williams v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 1993).
2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED
1. Ainsworth’s motion for continuance (Docket 24) is denied.
2. Ainsworth’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket 25) is denied.
3. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Docket 27) is granted.
Defendants will file their motion for summary judgment based on
qualified immunity by October 3, 2016.
Dated August 26, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3