Buzzard v. Robbins et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 1 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs and 2 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; directing Plaintiff to make monthly payments; denying Plaintiff 's 5 MOTION to Appoint Counsel; granting Plaintiff's 7 MOTION to Amend the Complaint; Clerk shall issue the summons and U. S. Marshal to serve the summons, Amended Complaint, and Exhibits on each defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 9/11/2014. (cc: Plaintiff with a copy of the Amended Complaint and the Exhibits, West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority, USM) (skm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
DAVID DEAN BUZZARD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 3:14-cv-25533
HENRY ROBBINS, Executive Director,
West Virginia Regional Jail &
Correctional Facility Authority;
JOE DELONG, Chief of Operations,
West Virginia Regional Jail &
Correctional Facility Authority;
J. LARRY CRAWFORD, Administrator,
Western Regional Jail;
LIEUTENANT CARL ALDRIDGE;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER B. HAAS;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CARTER;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHEPHARD;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FRANKLIN, and
WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs, (ECF Nos. 1, 2); Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, (ECF No. 5); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, (ECF No. 7). The
Court hereby GRANTS the applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court notes
that Plaintiff currently has a very minimal balance in his prison account; therefore,
Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial partial filing fee, but is hereby
ORDERED to make monthly payments equal to 20 percent of the preceding month’s
1
income credited to his prisoner account until the full filing fee of $350.00 has been paid.
The first payment shall be made on or before November 5, 2014 and the subsequent
payments shall be due on the fifth day of each month thereafter. The Mount Olive
Correctional Complex, or any other agency or facility having custody of Plaintiff, shall
forward payments from Plaintiff’s prisoner account to the Clerk of Court each time the
amount in Plaintiff’s prisoner account exceeds $10, until the full filing fee is paid. See 28
U.S.C. 1915(b). It is further ORDERED and NOTICED that the recovery, if any,
obtained in this action shall be paid to the Clerk of Court who shall collect therefrom all
unpaid fees and costs taxed against Plaintiff and shall pay the balance, if any, to the
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 5), is DENIED,
without prejudice. Although the Court may, in its discretion, request an attorney to
represent Plaintiff in this action, he has no constitutional right to counsel in this type of
litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2010); see also Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295, 298
(5th Cir.1975). According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
the appointment of counsel in civil actions “should be allowed only in exceptional
cases.” Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). When determining if a case
merits the assignment of pro bono counsel, the court must consider the complexity of
the claims and the ability of the indigent party to present them. Whisenant v. Yuam, 739
F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982).
(“[N]o comprehensive definition of exceptional circumstances is practical. The existence
of such 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.” (footnote
omitted)). Here, Plaintiff fails to present evidence or argument supporting the
2
conclusion that his case meets the high threshold necessary for the appointment of pro
bono counsel. To the contrary, Plaintiff primarily argues that counsel should be
appointed because he is incarcerated and does not have easy access to resources and
information. Unfortunately, the limitations associated with Plaintiff’s custodial status do
not, in and of themselves, merit the assignment of counsel. Louis v. Martinez, Case No.
5:08-cv-151, 2010 WL 1484302, at *1 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 12, 2010). The Court has
examined the record and finds that the claims asserted by Plaintiff are straightforward,
and he appears quite capable of presenting them at this stage of the litigation. Therefore,
the present circumstances do not justify the appointment of counsel. The undersigned
urges Plaintiff to continue in his search for an attorney willing to take his case.
In regard to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, the Court GRANTS
same. (ECF No. 7). Certainly, it is in the interest of justice to allow corrections to the
complaint prior to its service on the defendants.
It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue a summons for each
Defendant named in the Amended Complaint, and as set forth in the style hereinabove.
The Clerk shall provide the summonses, copies of the Amended Complaint, and the
Exhibits attached to the Complaint to the United States Marshals Service. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Rule 4(c)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., the United States Marshals Service
is ORDERED to serve the summons, Amended Complaint, and Exhibits on each
Defendant, or his/her designated agent for service. Service may be completed by any
manner allowed under Federal Rule 4, including by certified mail, to the addressee,
return receipt requested. The Marshals Service shall promptly file the proofs of service
with the Clerk.
3
Plaintiff is hereby notified of his obligation as a pro se plaintiff to
promptly advise the Clerk of Court of any changes in his address.
The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, the West Virginia
Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority, and the United States Marshals Service.
The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Amended Complaint and the
Exhibits.
ENTERED: September 11, 2014
4
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?