King v. Choate et al

Filing 87

ORDER: Presently pending are two motions in this matter. The first 79 is a motion to obtain records from the health care for the homeless in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Since the motion requests records from a clinic in the Southern District of Flori da, a subpoena for those records must be issued from that Court. The Clerk is directed to either issue on behalf of the Plaintiff a subpoena directing that the requested records be mailed to the Plaintiff at his current address or to transmit the Pla intiff's request and a copy of this order to the Clerk for the Southern District of Florida with a request that they issue the subpoena from their court and that the United States Marshals Service is directed to serve such subpoena. The Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel 82 . This motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 12/27/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COOKEVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM CARTER KING,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
TONY CHOATE and EVELYN FAYE SMITH,)
)
Defendants
)

No. 2:11-0117
Judge Sharp/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Presently pending are two motions in this matter.

The

first (Docket Entry 79) is a motion to obtain records from the
health care for the homeless in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

No

opposition has been filed to this motion.
The request is only for the production of records and
does not appear to trigger Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requirements for tendering of mileage and witness fees.
There is authority within the Sixth Circuit that the United States
Marshals Service may be directed to serve process without payment
for the Marshals Services fees for prisoners allowed to proceed in
forma pauperis.

The Plaintiff in this matter is proceeding in

forma pauperis (Docket Entry 4).

See Lafountain v. Martin, 210 WL

1526304 (W.D. Mich.); Hughes v. Lavender, 211 WL 2550740 (S.D.
Ohio); Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 686, 680-90 (6th Cir. 1983); and
Newsome v. Harrison, 687 F.2d 360, 361 (W.D. Tenn. 1988).

Since the motion requests records from a clinic in the
Southern District of Florida, a subpoena for those records must be
issued from that Court.
The Clerk is directed to either issue on behalf of the
Plaintiff a subpoena directing that the requested records be mailed
to the Plaintiff at his current address, which is William Carter
King 258469, Whiteville Correctional Facility, 1440 Union Springs
Road, Post Office Box 679, Whiteville, TN 38075-0679, or to
transmit the Plaintiff’s request and a copy of this order to the
Clerk for the Southern District of Florida with a request that they
issue the subpoena from their court and that the United States
Marshals Service is directed to serve such subpoena.
The

Plaintiff

also

requests

appointment

of

counsel

(Docket Entry 82). This motion is DENIED. While it is undoubtedly
true that appointment of counsel would assist the Plaintiff, this
case does not appear to be such an exceptional case that an
appointment of counsel is required.
The Supreme Court has held that “an indigent’s right to
appointed counsel . . . exists only where the litigant may lose his
physical

liberty

if

he

loses

the

litigation.”

Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981).

Lassiter

v.

Therefore,

unlike criminal proceedings, there is no constitutional right to
appointed counsel in a civil action. Willett v. Wells, 469 F.Supp.
748, 751 (E.D. Tenn. 1977).
2

The appointment of counsel for a civil litigant is a
matter within the discretion of the District Court and will only
occur under exceptional circumstances. Lavado v. Kechane, 992 F.2d
601 (6th Cir. 1993). In this instance, no such circumstances exist.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3